1 2026:CGHC:4989 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 725 of 2021  The United India Insurance Company Limited Micro Officer, Paras Complex, State Bank Of India, Gurudwara Road, Durg District Duug, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Durgesh Mishra S/o Late Balmiki Mishra Aged About 25 Years Caste Brahmin R/o Village Diyapipar, P.S. Goparu, District Shahdol, Mahya, Pradesh 2. Smt. Sushma Wd/o Late Balmiki Mishra Aged About 51 Years Caste Brahmin, R/o Village Diyapipar P.S. Goparu, District Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh 3. Thalendra Patel S/o Jamuna Prasad Patel Aged About 21 Years R/o Vogal, P.S. Patewa, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 4. Pitram Dadsena S/o Jagannath Caste Daksena Aged About 42 Years R/o Bansula, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Adv. For Respondents No.1&2 : Mr. Vivek Singhal, Adv. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 29.1.2026 1) By way of this appeal, Insurance Company has challenged the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.02.02 11:24:31 +0530 2 Janjgir-Champa in Claim Case No. 77/2019 dated 15.9.2021 whereby learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 6,50,800/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum on account of death of Balmiki Mishra. 2) Facts of the present case are that on 14.7.2019 at about 3:00pm, Balmiki Mishra was standing near Khokhla Gate in front of Nathani Bus Office when the offending vehicle – Truck bearing registration No. CG-06-GN-3418 dashed him. In the accident, Balmiki Mishra sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Claimants, who are the widow and son of deceased filed claim case claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 21,10,000/-. They pleaded that age of the deceased was 54 years and he was working as Supervisor at Escab Technoexperts earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. Insurance Company filed reply and took a plea that driver of truck did not have valid and effective driving license on the date of accident . Learned Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and thereafter, award was passed. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that xerox copy of driving license of driver of offending vehicle was seized by police and upon inquiry by the RTO department, it was found that said driving license was forged one. He contends that in this regard, a specific report issued by RTO, Bardhaman (W.B.) (Ex. NA/3) has been placed on record but same has not been considered by the learned Tribunal on the ground that 3 Insurance Company failed to examine any RTO official to prove the veracity of said document. He argues that despite knowledge that driver of truck did not possess valid driving license, owner permitted him to drive the said vehicle, hence the driver and owner being negligent should be mulcted with the burden of damages. He prays to set aside the award impugned. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants would oppose. He submits that Insurance Company failed to lead evidence before the learned Tribunal to prove that driving license of the driver of offending vehicle was a forged document. He contends that learned Tribunal has assessed the notional income of deceased to be Rs. 6,000/- per month which is not in consonance with the minimum wage matrix applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh at the relevant time. He argues that learned Tribunal also failed to award separate compensation towards loss of consortium to one of the claimants. He prays to modify the award accordingly. 5) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and carefully perused the documents placed on record. 6) Perusal of award would reveal that learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased to be Rs. 6,000/- whereas according to the minimum wage matrix applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh, minimum wages payable to an unskilled laborer in 4 July, 2019 was Rs. 8,400/- per month and learned Tribunal ought to have considered that figure. Furthermore, learned Tribunal has awarded loss of consortium to only one claimant overlooking the fact widow and son of deceased who filed claim case are entitled to receive separate compensation towards loss of consortium as held by Hon’ble Supreme in the matter of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors.1. 7) Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is re- computing the compensation as below: Sr. No . Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Annual Income Rs. 72,000/- (@Rs. 6,000 pm) Rs. 1,00,800/- (@Rs. 8,400 pm) 2. Future Prospect Rs. 79,200/- (@10%) Rs. 1,10,880/- (@10%) 3. Annual income after Deduction towards personal expenses Rs. 52,800/- (@1/3) Rs. 73,920/- (@1/3) 4. Annual Income after applying Multiplier Rs. 5,80,800/- (@11) Rs. 8,13,120/- (@11) 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 70,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium Rs. 96,000/- (two claimants + additional sum of 20%) TOTAL Rs. 6,50,800/- Rs. 9,39,120/- 1. (2008) 18 SCC 130 5 8) Now, the question is, whether the principle of pay and recover would apply? Perusal of the record would reveal that neither driver nor owner of offending vehicle appeared before the learned Tribunal. They failed to prove that valid driving license was in existence on the date of accident. During course of investigation, police authorities seized a xerox copy of driving license of respondent No. 3 – driver, namely, Dhalendra ; said document was examined by RTO department. A report (Ex. NA/3) has been placed on record wherein it is stated that the said driving license is not issued in the name of respondent No. 3 – driver. learned Tribunal has not assigned any reason while discarding the report (Ex. NA/3) issued by RTO authority wherein it is specifically held that alleged driving license was not issued in the name of respondent No. 3 – driver. 9) At this stage it would be advantageous to refer to a judgment rendered by co-ordinate Bench in the matter of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Niki Tiwari and Ors.2 wherein a specific defense was taken by the Insurance Company with regard to driving license and it was held that ‘it is expected from the owner of vehicle that after verifying the driving license of the said driver, the vehicle in question was permitted to be driven by him and the onus to establish the basic facts of his own knowledge was upon the owner to plead and prove that he 2. 2019 SCC OnLine Chh 180 6 authorized the said driver for driving his vehicle.’ Relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced herein-below :- 8. As reflected from the record, the owner and driver of the alleged offending vehicle were proceeded ex parte and, admittedly have failed to submit their written statements. A very specific defence was taken by the Appellant/Insurance Company in its written statement that the driver (Awtar Singh) of the alleged offending vehicle was not possessing the valid and effective driving licence to drive the same and the said fact has duly been found established as observed herein above. 10. Pertinently, as observed herein above, no plea whatsoever was taken by the insured and has chosen not to participate in the proceeding. It was, however, expected from him that after verifying the driving licence of the said driver, the vehicle in question was permitted to be driven by him. Surprisingly, no effort as such was taken for the reasons best known to him, though the onus to establish the basic facts of his own knowledge was upon the owner to plead and prove that he authorized the said driver for driving his vehicle after verifying the genuineness of his driving licence and only after that the alleged offending vehicle was permitted to be driven by him. In absence thereof, the basic fact of his own knowledge in this regard could not have been established. Non- disclosure of such a basic fact would, therefore, lead to an irresistible conclusion that the insured was aware regarding the fact that his driver (Awtar Singh) was not holding the valid and effective driving licence to drive the alleged offending vehicle and yet it was permitted to be driven by him. 10) High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Daljeet Kaur and others Versus Fakru and another 3 while dealing with the similar issue held as under :- 3. 2006 SCC OnLine MP 571 7 7. Learned Counsel for the respondent insurance company has submitted that the original driving licence issued by the R.T.O. Authority, Guwahati, Assam is fake and the said fake licence was renewed from time to time by the Gwalior Transport Authority. The insurance company in his written statement raised a plea that the original licence was fake and he also appointed investigator to verify the said facts. The investigator had written a letter to the District Transport Officer, Kamrup (W/Z), Guwahati regarding genuineness of driving licence. The said authority after examining the licence No. M- 43514/84/Guwahati gave an endorsement in the letter dated 4.8.2004, Exh. D1 that the original licence was not issued from the said authority and, therefore, the original driving licence is forged driving licence. 8. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that insurance company failed to examine Road Transport Authority who had issued the original driving licence in the year 1984 and, therefore, the contention of the respondents cannot be accepted. The learned Counsel for the appellants does not dispute the fact that the licensing authority itself has made an endorsement in Exh. D1 to the effect that no such licence was issued nor it exists in the record of the Licensing Authority and, therefore, such certificate is admissible in evidence as a public document under Section 74 (1) (iii) of the Evidence Act. Learned Counsel for the insurance company drew my attention to the decision of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mulayam Bai , in which it has been held that the certificate is the record of the act done by the public officer, who has found, after examining itself its own record that the licence does not exist. This can be proved by producing the original certificate in the court. This Court has held that the certificate issued by licensing authority is a public document and admissible in evidence without examining someone from the authority. Learned Counsel for 8 the insurance company also drew my attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamla , in which the Apex Court held that what was originally a forgery would remain null and void forever and it would not acquire legal validity at any time by whatever process of sanctification subsequently done on it. Forgery is antithesis to legality and law cannot afford to validate a forgery and held that if fake licence was renewed after the accident the renewal cannot transform a fake licence as genuine. Thus, there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on account of the vehicle being driven without a valid driving licence and, therefore, insurance company is liable to pay to the third party, but they can recover from the insured the amount so paid to the third party. Thus, the insurance company is entitled to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle on account of being driven by the person who had no valid licence to drive the vehicle. 11. In view of the above the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kamla (supra) will be fully applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. The insurance company, respondent No. 2, is entitled to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle on account of vehicle being driven by person who had no valid licence to drive the vehicle and, therefore, the cross-objections filed by the insurance company is partly allowed for the reasons assigned above. 11) Though the driving license of driver of offending vehicle was forged one, learned Tribunal discarded the evidence led by Insurance Company in this regard and fastened the liability with it holding that there was negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle. The finding with regard to negligence on the part of driver appears to be proper but at the same time, learned Tribunal erred 9 in law while fastening the liability with the Insurance Company. 12)It is abundantly clear that offending vehicle was being driven in breach of insurance policy, therefore learned Tribunal ought to have fastened the liability with the driver and owner of that vehicle with a stipulation that Insurance Company shall satisfy the award first and recover it from driver and owner. 13) In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed. The appellant Insurance Company is made liable to pay the enhanced compensation as discussed in para-7 herein-above to the claimants, however, it shall have the right to realize the said amount of compensation from respondents No. 3 and 4, driver and owner, respectively, in accordance with law. In conclusion, the appellant Insurance Company is directed to pay/disburse the enhanced compensation i.e. Rs. 9,39,120/- to the claimants first and recover the same from driver and owner. 14) There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a