1 2026:CGHC:8971 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1574 of 2018 Magma HDI General Insurance Company Ltd. Through-Regional Office, Third Floor Plot No. 93 Scheme No. 47 Near State Bank Of India Sapna Sangeeta Road Indore Madhya Pradesh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Lakhan Yadav S/o Bhukhan Yadav Aged About 49 Years R/o Village- Bhaisera P.S. Fingeshwar Tehsil- Rajim District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Gaindi Bai Yadav W/o Shri Lakhan Yadav Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Bhaisera P.S. Fingeshwar Tehsil- Rajim District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chetan Sahu S/o Gulab Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Village- Bhaisera, School Para P.S. Fingeshwar Tehsil- Rajim District- Raipur, Chhattisgrah. 4 - Tikuram Sahu S/o Mayaram Sahu R/o Village Binori (Basin), P.S. Fingeshwar Tehsil- Rajim District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Respondents No.1 and 2 : None, despite service of notice For Respondents No.3 and 4 : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 19.02.2026 1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the award dated 30.06.2018 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as the “Claims YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.02.23 18:51:30 +0530 2 Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 633/2014, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim application and awarded a sum of Rs.3,17,400/- in favour of the claimant. The Tribunal fastened the liability to satisfy the compensation upon the driver and owner of the tractor–trolley bearing registration No. CG-04-D- 5318 (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”). However, in the interest of justice, Insurance Company was directed to pay the awarded amount at the first instance with liberty to recover the same from non-applicants No. 1 and 2/driver and owner of the offending vehicle, in accordance with law. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the claimants before the learned Claims Tribunal was that on 23.10.2013, deceased Kamal Narayan Yadav @ Jethu Ram was travelling in the offending vehicle for the purpose of labour work. It was pleaded that non- applicant No.1, the driver of the said vehicle, drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which it fell into a pit and the tractor–trolley overturned. In the said accident, Kamal Narayan Yadav @ Jethu Ram sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. According to the claimants, the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of non-applicant No.1. 3. In the claim petition, it was averred that at the time of the accident the deceased was aged about 19 years, was healthy and was earning Rs.200/- per day by working as a labourer. It was stated that he was contributing to and looking after his family. Due to his 3 untimely death, the claimants suffered immense mental agony and financial hardship. On these grounds, the claimants sought compensation to the tune of Rs.18,50,000/- under various heads before the learned Claims Tribunal. 4. After considering the submissions of the parties as well as the material available on record, the learned Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition with costs and awarded a total sum of Rs.3,17,400/- as compensation on account of the untimely death of Kamal Narayan in the motor accident. The Tribunal directed non-applicants No.1 and 2, being the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, to pay the said amount jointly and severally along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual realization. However, the Insurance Company was directed to satisfy the award at the first instance with liberty to recover the same from non-applicants No.1 and 2 in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the present case is one of “no policy” inasmuch as the owner of the offending vehicle had not obtained any valid and effective insurance policy covering the offending vehicle on the date of accident i.e. 23.10.2013. It is contended that although a policy document was produced before the learned Claims Tribunal, upon verification the said policy was found to be fake and not issued by the Insurance Company. The learned Claims Tribunal has 4 recorded a categorical finding to that effect. It is further submitted that despite holding the policy to be fake and thereby concluding that there was no valid contract of insurance in existence, the learned Claims Tribunal erred in directing the Insurance Company to pay the awarded compensation at the first instance with liberty to recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the owner and driver i.e. respondents No.3 and 4 submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in law in not properly appreciating the insurance policy placed on record. According to her, the policy was genuine and valid on the date of accident and ought to have been accepted by the Tribunal. However, she fairly submits that the specific finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal holding the policy to be fake has not been independently assailed by filing any appeal or cross-objection on behalf of the owner and driver. She further submits that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and, therefore, the liability ought to have been apportioned. In support of her submissions, she has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Nagendra v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2297. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company further submits that once the Tribunal has recorded a 5 clear finding that the policy was fake and that there was no valid insurance cover on the date of accident, the direction to “pay and recover” is unsustainable in law. It is contended that the principle of pay and recover cannot be mechanically applied in a case where there was no policy at all. According to him, the liability, if any, is solely that of the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 8. Despite service of notice and despite filing of vakalatnama on behalf of the claimants/respondents No.1 and 2, none appears on their behalf. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record with utmost circumspection. 10. From a bare perusal of the award and the material available on record, it is evident that the learned Claims Tribunal framed specific issues regarding the existence and validity of the insurance policy. Upon appreciation of the evidence adduced, the Tribunal recorded a categorical finding that the insurance policy produced in respect of the offending vehicle was fake and not issued by the concerned Insurance Company. The said finding is essentially a finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence. Significantly, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle have not challenged the said finding by preferring any independent appeal or cross-objection. Thus, the finding that the policy was fake and that there was no valid insurance coverage on the date of accident has attained finality. 6 11. In such circumstances, once it stands established that there was no subsisting and valid policy of insurance covering the offending vehicle on the date of accident, the contractual liability of the Insurance Company cannot be fastened. The direction issued by the learned Claims Tribunal directing the Insurance Company to first satisfy the award and thereafter recover the amount from non- applicants No.1 and 2 is not in consonance with law, particularly when the very foundation of insurance coverage was found to be non-existent. 12. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the interim order dated 24.01.2019 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the Insurance Company has already deposited/paid 50% of the awarded amount. In view of the finding that there was no valid insurance policy, the Insurance Company cannot be saddled with the ultimate liability to satisfy the award. Therefore, while modifying the award to the aforesaid extent, it is held that the entire liability to pay compensation of Rs.3,17,400/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization shall rest upon the owner and driver of the offending vehicle jointly and severally. 13. The Insurance Company shall be at liberty to recover the amount, if any already paid pursuant to the interim order of this Court, from the concerned owner and driver of the offending vehicle in accordance with law. The owner and driver are directed to 7 deposit/pay the entire awarded amount along with accrued interest before the learned Claims Tribunal within a period of 60 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the same shall be recoverable in accordance with law. 14. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands allowed. 15. Records of the Tribunal along with a copy of this order be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh