1 2026:CGHC:22498 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1259 of 2019 1 - Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Commercial Complex, T.P. Nagar, Korba, Tahsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Shankarlal Sahu (Died And Deleted) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 05-05-2026. 2 - Smt. Parvati Sahu W/o Shankarlal Sahu Aged About 65 Years R/o Village- Patewa, Police Station- Rajim, Tahsil- Abhanpur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Urmila Sahu W/o Late Dinesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Irrigation Colony, Sioni Champa, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ku. Dinila Sahu D/o Late Dinesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 19 Years R/o Irrigation Colony, Sioni Champa, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Mohd. Khalid Ansari S/o Mohd. Mubarak Ansari R/o Qr. No.- ND13, CSEB Colony, Korba, Tahsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh...... Driver Of Vehicle No. CG-12 ZE- 2523. 6 - E.M. Kutti S/o Moinuddin R/o Qr. No. HIG-14, Sada Colony, Jamnaipali, Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh......Owner Of Vehicle No. CG-12 ZE- 2523. ... Respondents For Appellant :- Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate. HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.05.14 16:24:27 +0530 2 For Respondents :- None. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 13/05/2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance company challenging the impugned award dated 01.02.2019 passed by the 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 17/2012 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the claimants’ application and awarded a sum of ₹12,69,644/- as compensation along with interest and the liability has been fastened upon the insurance company. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the vehicle at the time of the accident was being driven by a minor, and the claims tribunal also recorded an affirmative finding in para 18; therefore, the insurance company ought to have been completely exonerated, and the doctrine of pay and recover could not have been applied. He also submits that there is a delay of about five months in filing the FIR. As such, the appeal of the Insurance Company deserves to be allowed. 3. No one appeared on behalf of the respondents, though served. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the records meticulously. 5. The issue involved in the matter has been decided conclusively by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jawahar Singh vs. Bala Jain and Others1 in which their Lordships have clearly held in paragraphs 11 and 14 as under:- “11. It has been well settled that if it is not possible for an awardee to recover the compensation awarded against the driver of the vehicle, the liability to make payment of the compensation awarded fell on the owner of the vehicle. It was submitted that in this case since the person riding the motorcycle at the time of accident was a minor, the responsibility for paying the compensation awarded fell on the owner of the motorcycle. In fact, in Ishwar Chandra v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.2 , it was held by this Court that in case the driver of the vehicle did not have a licence at all, the liability to make payment of compensation fell on the owner since it waws his obligation to take adequate care to see that the driver had an appropriate licence to drive the vehicle. 14. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that it was Jatin, who came from behind on the motorcycle and hit the scooter of the deceased from behind. The responsibility in causing the accident was, therefore, found to be solely that of Jatin. However, since Jatin was a minor and it was the responsibility of the petitioner to ensure that his motorcycle was not misused and that too by a minor who had no licence to drive the same, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal 1 (2011) 6 SCC 425 2 (2007) 10 SCC 650 4 quite rightly saddled the liability for payment of compensation on the petitioner and, accordingly, directed the Insurance company to pay the awarded amount to the awardees and, thereafter, to recover the same from the petitioner. The said question has been duly considered by the Tribunal and was correctly decided. The High Court rightly chose not to interfere with the same.” 6. So far as the contention with the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, the delay in filing the FIR cannot be treated as fatal for such proceedings in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ravi vs. Badrinarayan and Others3. 7. In view of the aforesaid judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the subject matter, the doctrine of pay and recover would apply in the case in hand, though the vehicle has been driven by a minor and the insurance company has rightly been held to first pay the compensation amount and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Thus, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the finding recorded by the claims tribunal. 8. Accordingly, the appeal of the Insurance Company is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge H.L. Sahu 3 (2011) 4 SCC 693