1 2026:CGHC:19654 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2201 of 2019 1 - Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch Office- Rama Trade Centre, 1st Floor, Old Bus Stand, Opposite Rajiv Plaza, P.S. Civil Lines, Tehsil And District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Through Its Incharge, T.P. Hub, Bilaspur..................(Respdt. No. 3), --- Appellant versus 1 - Narendra Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Ghasiram, Aged About 42 Years R/o Nariyara, P.S. Mulmula, Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, 2 - Shiv Bhaina S/o Devi Prasad Bhaina, Aged About 21 Years R/o Madaee, P.S. Sipat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.................Driver, 3 - M/s. Mahavir Coal Washeries Pvt. Ltd., Empire House, Deendayal Garden, Bilaspur, Vyapar Vihar Road, Police Station Civil Lines, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh................Owner, 4 - Kiran Kumar S/o Ghanshyam Prasad, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Madaee Police Station Sipat Mandi Khamtiya Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.............Non-Applicant No. 4, --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. R.N, Pusty, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate. KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.04.29 18:35:32 +0530 2 MAC No. 628 of 2020 1 - Narendra Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Ghasiram Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Nariyara, Police Station Mulmula, Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh...............Applicant, -- Appellant Versus 1 - Shiv Bhaina S/o Devi Prasad Bhaina, Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Madai, Police Station Sipat, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) (Driver Of The Vehicle Trailer No. C.G.-10/R-0766)................Non- Applicant, 2 - M/s Mahavir Coal Washring Private Limited, Empire House, Dindayal Garden Bilaspur, Vyapar Vihar Road, Police Station- Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) (Owner Of The Vehicle Trailer No. C.G.-10/R-0766)................Non-Applicant, 3 - Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office- Rama Trade Cemter, 1st Floor, In Front Of Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, Police Station- Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Vehicle Trailer No. C.G.-10/R- 0766)...............Non- Applicant, 4 - Kiran Kumar S/o Ghanshyam Prasad Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Madai, Police Station Sipat, Mandi Khamtiya, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh................Non- Applicant, --- Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. R.N. Pusty, Advocate. (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 28/04/2026 1. Against the impugned award dated 25.6.2019 passed by the 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.161/2017, MAC 3 No.2201/2019 has been filed by the Insurance Company seeking setting aside of the impugned award and to exonerate it from liability to pay compensation whereas MAC No.628/2020 has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. 2. Since common question of law and fact is involved in these Appeals for adjudication, they are clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Mr. R.N. Pusty, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the Claims Tribunal was absolutely not justified in fastening liability on the Insurance Company and the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal in this regard is perverse, as admittedly respondent No.2 namely, Shiv Bhaina did not have valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle and, therefore, the Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company may be allowed. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Anand Kesharwani, learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant would submit that compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may be enhanced suitably. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 4 MAC No. 2201of 2019 6. The Claims Tribunal relying upon the statement of owner of the offending vehicle namely, Vinod Kumar Jain and one Kiran Kumar, who was duly authorized by the owner of the vehicle to drive offending vehicle, came to the conclusion that owner Vinod Kumar Jain has authorized the said Kiran Kumar to drive offending vehicle, who had effective and valid driving licence to drive offending vehicle. However, on account of accident, the said Kiran Kumar ran away from the trailer truck and since Shiv Bhaina was sleeping in the offending vehicle, he was caught by the people and offence was registered against him u/s 304-A of IPC. As such, finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that there was no willful breach on the part of owner of offending vehicle, as Kiran Kumar was duly authorized by the owner to drive the offending vehicle, is the correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record. 7. Even otherwise, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh1 has held at para- 110 (iii) as under:- “110. ‘…...(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 1 (2004) 3 SCC 297 5 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.” 8. In this regard, it will be profitable to refer para-9 of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sohan Lal Passi Vs. P. Sesh Reddy and Others2 which reads as under:- “9. In the case of Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi vs. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co.(P) Ltd3, it was said: (SCC pp. 756-57, para 14) "...we would like to point out that the recent trend in law is to make the master liable for acts which do not strictly fall within the term 'in the course of the employment' as ordinarily understood. We have referred to Sitaram Motilal Kalal v Santanuprasad Jaishankar Bhatt4 where this Court accepted the law laid down by Lord Denning in Ormrod v. Crosville Motor Services Ltd.5 that the owner is not only liable for the negligence of the driver if that driver is his servant acting in the course of his employment but also when the driver is, with the owner's consent, driving the car on the owner's business or for the owner's purposes. This extension has been accepted by this Court. The law as laid down by Lord Denning in Young vs. Edward Box and Co. Ltd.6 already referred to i.e. the first question is to see whether the servant is liable and if the answer is yes, the second question is to see whether the employer must shoulder the servant's liability, has been uniformly accepted as stated in Salmond's Law of Torts, 16th Edn., p.606, in Crown Proceedings Act, 1947 and approved by the House 2 (1996) 5 SCC 21 3 (1977) 2 SCC 745 4 AIR 1966 SC 1697 5 (1953) 2 All ER 753 6 (1951) 1 TLR 789 6 of Lords in Staveley Iron and Chemical Co. Ltd. vs. Jones7 and ICI Ltd. v. Shatwell8." Same is the position in the present case. The appellant had authorised Gurubachan Singh to drive the vehicle, but Gurubachan Singh allowed Rajinder Pal Singh, the cleaner/conductor who was also the employee of the appellant to drive the vehicle because of which the accident took place. It is not the stand of the appellant the Rajinder Pal Singh was driving the vehicle without the knowledge or consent of Gurubachan Singh, for his personal pursuit. He was driving the bus for the business of the appellant, that is to carry the passengers. In this background, the appellant cannot escape the liability so far the third parties are concerned on the ground that he had not actually authorised the particular manner in which the act was done. As it has been established that the negligent act of Gurubachan Singh and respondent Rajinder Pal Singh was "in the course of employment" the appellant shall be liable for the same. In the present case, the accident took place when the act authorised was being performed in a mode which may not be proper but nonetheless it was directly connected within the course of employment. It was not an independent act for a purpose which had no nexus or connection with the business of the appellant so as to absolve the appellant from the liability.” 9. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. MAC No. 628 of 2020 10. Considering the statements of Vinod Kumar Jain, owner of the offending vehicle; Kiran Kumar, authorized person and Shiv Bhaina, who was allegedly driving the offending vehicle, this Court 7 (1956) 1 All ER 403 8 (1964) 2 All ER 999 7 is of the considered opinion that compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in favour of the claimant deserves to be enhanced. As such, the claimant will be entitled for the following compensation as computed by this Court:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Medical expenses Rs.9,00,000/- Rs.9,00,000/- 2. Loss of income during treatment Rs.1,80,000/- Rs.2,80,000/- 3. Pain & suffering Rs.40,000/- Rs.80,000/- 4. Diet Rs.20,000/- Rs.50,000/- 5. Conveyance and attendant Rs.40,000/- Rs.70,000/- Grand Total Rs.11,80,000/- Rs.13,80,000/- 11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹11,80,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹13,80,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹11,80,000/-, the claimant is held to be entitled to an additional amount of ₹2,00,000/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 8 12. In the result, the Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the Appeal filed by the claimant is allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Barve