1 2026:CGHC:1823 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 310 of 2020 Reserved on : 05.01.2026 Delivered on : 13.01.2026 1. United India Insurance Company Ltd Through Its Branch Manager, Office Address Station Road, Paras Complex, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh Through Its Asstt. Manager, T. P. Hub, 1st Floor, Lic Building, Magarpara Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus 1. Smt. Monika Sahu W/o Late Bhushan Lal Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Bhengari, Tahsil Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 2. Bhikham Ram Sahu S/o Pal Singh Sahu Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Bhengari, Tahsil Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 3. Smt. Parvati Sahu W/o Bhikham Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Bhengari, Tahsil Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh .........1 To 3 Are Claimants, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 4. Sukh Singh Kanwar @ Bhagau S/o Sadh Ram Kanwar Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Limdih, District Korba Chhattisgarh........Driver, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5. M/s. Bb Verma (Owner) Through Naresh Kumar Verma S/o Ramchand Verma Address 4-5, Contractor Hig-09 C1-C-2, Niharika Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh ..........Owner, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 305 of 2020 1. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Branch Manager, Office Address Station Road, Paras Complex, Police Station, Mohan Nagar, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. Through Its Asstt. Manager, T.P. Hub, 1st Floor, Lic Building Magarpara Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2026.01.13 17:11:07 +0530 2 Versus 1. Smt. Santoshi Bai Wd/o Late Gopal Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Bhengari, Tahsil Gurur, District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 2. Bhikham Ram Sahu S/o Pal Singh Sahu Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Bhengari, Tahsil Gurur, District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 3. Smt. Parvati Sahu W/o Bhikham Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Bhengari, Tahsil Gurur, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 4. Sukh Singh Kanwar @ Bhagau S/o Sadhu Ram Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Limdih, District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5. M/s Bb Verma (Owner) Through Naresh Kumar Verma, Son Of Ramchand Verma, Address 4-5, Contractor Hig - 09 C1-C2, Niharika, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Akash Shrivastava and Mr. Benon, Advocates For Claimant(s) : Ms. Santoshi Yadav, Advocate For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas C.A.V. JUDGMENT 1. Both the Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 05.12.2019 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) in M.A.C.T. Case No. 304/2019 in case of Smt. Monika Sahu & Others vs. Sukhsingh Kanwar @ Bhagau & Others & M.A.C.T. Case No. 303/2019 in case of Smt. Santoshi Bai & Others vs. Sukhsingh Kanwar @ Bhagau & Others which arose from the same accident, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The brief facts as reflected from the record of the Claim Case No. 304/2019 are that on 25.05.2018, at around 1:30 PM, the deceased 3 Bhushan Lal Sahu along with his brother Gopal Sahu was going to Kirandul for carpentry work on their motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-24-1071 and was driving carefully on the left side of the road. At the same time, a truck bearing registration No. CG-04-JA- 1452 driven by its driver rashly and negligently came from the opposite direction on National Highway No. 30, Main Road, Sonar Pal Ghat, near the road leading to Chapka village and collided with their motorcycle causing serious injuries which succumbed to death which has necessitated the claimants to file the claim applications before the learned Claims Tribunal Durg claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 56,40,000/- (Rupees Fifty-Six Lakhs Forty Thousand Only) and Rs. 55,20,000/- (Rupees Fifty-Five Lakhs Twenty Thousand Only) respectively along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the application till the date of payment in both the claim cases No. 304/2019 and 303/2019 respectively. 3. The respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed reply to the said applications denying the allegations made in the claim application and also denied that no accident has been occurred by reckless and negligence driving of the vehicle by the driver. It has also been contended that the driver Sukh Singh Kanwar was having the valid driving licence to drive the vehicle, as such the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation and has prayed for dismissal of the application so far as against them. 4. The appellant Insurance Company filed written statement denying the allegations made in the applications and also denied the income of the deceased. It has been specifically contended that the 4 deceased was driving two wheeler vehicle rashly and negligently, as such, it is a case of contributory negligence, therefore, the insurer of the motor cycle is the necessary party and as such they should be impleaded as party to the case. It has also been contended that the vehicle was commercial vehicle and the said vehicle was plying without having valid registration certificate, permit and fitness certificate and the driver i.e. respondent No. 1 was not holding valid and effective specific driving licence at the time of accident to drive the vehicle, as such the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation and has prayed for dismissal of the applications. 5. On the pleadings of the party, the learned Claims Tribunal has framed 5 issues, out of which issue No. 3 is relevant for adjudication of the appeals, therefore, it is extracted below: “3- D;k nq?kZVuk fnukad dks vukosnd Øekad&01 okgu Vªd Øekad&lh- th-@ts-,-@1452 dks chek 'krksZa ds mYya?ku esa pkyu fd;k gS\” 6. The claimant examined the witness and exhibited the documents. The owner of the vehicle has not examined any witness. The Insurance Company examined the witness Satanand Jangade, Assistant Grade-II, District RTO Office Korba who has stated that the licence was issued to the driver for driving the non-transport vehicle from 19.08.2014 to 18.08.2019 and licence to drive the transport vehicle was valid from 19.08.2019 to 18.08.2024. He has also stated that the licence to drive the transport vehicle was issued from 19.08.2019 to 18.08.2022, but on 25.05.2018 the driver Sukhsingh has no valid transport licence. He has also stated that the fitness certificate (Exhibit D/3) was not valid and effective on 25.05.2018 and he has also stated that if the vehicle is running in 5 jurisdiction of other Regional Transport Office (RTO) then the fitness certificate can be issued by that authority. The witness was cross- examined by the respondent No. 1 and 2 wherein he has admitted that the driver Sukh Singh’s non-transport licence was issued on 04.06.1984 and transport category licence was issued on 06.07.1984. He has also stated that the date of birth of the driver is 05.03.1964 and also admitted that as per Exhibit D/1 the driving licence of the driver was renewed. He has also admitted that as per the record driving licence of the driver was not suspended by RTO authority. He has also admitted that on 25.04.2018 the said vehicle was usable or not or declared unfit no document has been produced by him. He has also stated that he is not aware whether the Regional Transport Office Jagdalpur has issued any certificate or not. 7. Mahesh Mishra (DW-2) has been examined before the trial Court and has stated that on 25.05.2018 the driving licence of the driver and fitness registration certificate was not valid and effective, therefore, it is violation of policy. He has also stated that as per the particulars of licence the driver was not having valid licence to drive transport vehicle from 03.03.2014 to 18.08.2019. The said witness in the cross-examination has admitted that on 25.05.2018, the insurance policy (Exhibit D/4) was valid and effective and also admitted that for third party liability the insurance company is liable to pay and he has also admitted that deceased are third party for the insurance company. The said witness has admitted in the cross- examination that as per Exhibit D/1 the licence was valid for driving the Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) upto 18.08.2024. He has also 6 admitted that they have not produced any documents regarding unfitness of driver to drive the vehicle issued by RTO. 8. The learned Claims Tribunal after appreciating the evidence, material on record holding an enquiry on record has passed the award of the compensation to the tune of Rs. 12,21,928/- in favour of the claimants in Claim Case No. 304/2019 and in Claim Case No. 303/2019 passed an award of Rs. 11,57,932/- with 7% interest in case the claim amount is not deposited within one month. 9. Being aggrieved with this award, the Insurance Company has filed these two appeals mainly contending that the driving licence of the driver of the insured vehicle was not renewed and as such the said aspect proved that the owner had plied the insured vehicle without there being a valid and effective driving licence of the driver. It has also been contended that the Claims Tribunal has recorded its finding that fitness of the vehicle was not valid at the time of accident, ought to have exonerated the appellant from any liability to pay the compensation as breach was of fundamental nature and that would have the effect of totally exonerating the insurance company. The reasoning assigned by the learned Claims Tribunal that the driver was not disqualified from driving a vehicle and that the driver had competence to drive as he was issued transport licence prior to and after the date of accident, is no good ground to hold that the driver was holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time to accident. He would further submit that the learned Claims Tribunal should further have also appreciated that in the instant case the owner and driver have failed to appear in the witness box and give explanation of not having valid driving licence. 7 Learned Claims Tribunal has failed to properly appreciate the provisions of Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and would pray for allowing the appeals. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 3 would submit that the impugned award is legal, justified and does not warrant interference by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the appeal. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 12. From perusal of the awards, it is quite vivid that the learned Claims Tribunal has recorded its finding in paragraph 16 that licence to drive transport vehicle was effective upto 18.08.2017 and thereafter, it has been renewed on 19.08.2019 to 18.08.2022 which is within five years, therefore, it is permissible as per Section 15(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short “Act of 1988”) as stood prior to amendment. This finding is contrary to the provisions of Section 15(4) of the Act of 1988 as the proviso to Section 15(4) of the Act of 1988 provides that if the application is made more than 5 years the driving licence is ceased to be effective, the licensing authority shall refuse to renew the driving licence unless the applicant undergoes and passes to its satisfaction the test of competency to derive referred to in sub-Section 3 of Section 9 of the Act of 1988. From the perusal of the proviso to Section 15 of the Act of 1988 as stood prior to amendment provides that licensing authority may refuse or may grant but does not provide that the licence will be valid to drive the transport vehicle having weight of 8000 kg. This finding is against the law that unless the licence is renewed it cannot be held to be 8 valid licence to drive the vehicle by giving retrospective effect of renewal after 30 days as stood prior to amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f. 01.09.2019. 13. This issue is no more res integra as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Singh Ram vs. Nirmala & Others reported in 2018 (3) SCC 800, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that unless licence is renewed it cannot be held to be valid driving licence by giving its subsequent renewal as retrospective effect and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the direction of the Claims Tribunal to pay the compensation to the claimants by the Insurance Company and then recover from the owner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 5 to 8 has held as under: “5. Before we advert to the decision in Swaran Singh (supra) a brief reference to the facts as they emerge from the decision of the Tribunal is necessary. Initially before the Tribunal the appellant produced a driving licence issued by the Motor Vehicles Department, Agra (Exh.R-1). The driving licence was found to be fake. The statement of the Senior Assistant in the office of the RTO, Agra was that Exh.R-1 had not been issued by the office. The Tribunal noted that the witness had proved the report (Exh.R-2) issued by the department and concluded that the licence was fake. Faced with this situation, the appellant attempted to prove that he held a valid driving licence issued by the licencing authority at Jagadhri to drive a motor cycle. The Tribunal rejected the application filed by the appellant for producing additional evidence. The Tribunal noted that even otherwise, the licence which was issued by the licencing authority, Jagadhri for a tractor and car was valid only until 29 August 2009. The accident took place on 22 March 2010. The licence was renewed on 28 November 2011 more than two years after it had expired. On these facts, the Tribunal observed that on the date of the accident, the appellant was not holding a valid and effective driving licence nor was there any evidence to indicate that the licence was sought to be renewed as required in law, within 30 days of its expiry. The Tribunal also observed that the appellant did not hold a valid licence to drive a motor cycle. On these grounds, the insurer was 9 absolved. The High Court has confirmed the direction of the Tribunal to pay and recover. 6. In Swaran Singh (supra), this Court held that the holder of a driving licence has a period of thirty days on its expiry, to renew it: “45. Thus, a person whose licence is ordinarily renewed in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder, despite the fact that during the interregnum period, namely, when the accident took place and the date of expiry of the licence, he did not have a valid licence, he could during the prescribed period apply for renewal thereof and could obtain the same automatically without undergoing any further test or without having been declared unqualified therefor. Proviso appended to Section 14 in unequivocal terms states that the licence remains valid for a period of thirty days from the day of its expiry. 46. Section 15 of the Act does not empower the authorities to reject an application for renewal only on the ground that there is a break in validity or tenure of the driving licence has lapsed, as in the meantime the provisions for disqualification of the driver contained in Sections 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 will not be attracted, would indisputably confer a right upon the person to get his driving licence renewed. In that view of the matter, he cannot be said to be delicensed and the same shall remain valid for a period of thirty days after its expiry.” The following conclusion has been recorded in summation in the judgment:: “(iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. (iv) Insurance companies, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available 10 defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish “breach” on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefor would be on them. (v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how the said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards the insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply “the rule of main purpose” and the concept of “fundamental breach” to allow defences available to the insurer under Section 149(2) of the Act. (vii) The question, as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver (a fake one or otherwise), does not fulfil the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case”. 7. In the present case it is necessary to note, as observed by the Tribunal, that the owner did not depose in evidence and stayed away from the witness box. He produced a licence which was found to be fake. Another licence which he sought to produce had already expired before the accident and was not renewed within the prescribed period. It was renewed well after two years had expired. The appellant as owner had evidently failed to take reasonable care (proposition (vii) of Swaran Singh) since he could not have been unmindful of facts which were within his knowledge. 8. In the circumstances, the direction by the Tribunal, confirmed by the High Court, to pay and recover cannot be faulted. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 14. As such, the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal in both the claim applications based upon wrong application of law deserves to be modified, but the claimants are third party for the Insurance Company, as such, the appellant Insurance Company is 11 liable to pay the compensation to them and thereafter, they are entitled to recover from the owner as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Singh Ram (Supra) and Swarn Singh (Supra). Accordingly, the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is liable to be modified and in place of direction to pay compensation by the appellant is modified to the extent that the Insurance Company will pay the compensation as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal and they are able to recover from the owner of the vehicle. 15. This Court while admitting the appeals has granted the interim stay by directing the appellant insurance Company to deposit 75% of the award under appeal before the Executing Court and the respondent No. 1 to 3 claimants are entitled to withdraw the same as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the award without furnishing any kind of security before the concerned executing Court. The Insurance Company shall deposit remaining 25% of the amount of compensation before the executing Court within 45 days and the same shall be withdrawn by the claimants as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the award and the interim order passed by this Court on 26.02.2020 is vacated. 16. Consequently, the appeals are allowed in part as indicated above. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish