1 2026:CGHC:22608 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 378 of 2020 1 - Smt. Mithila Sidar W/o Shri Ishwar @ Ghurau Sidar Aged About 50 Years Residence Of Village Baroli Thana And Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ishwar @ Ghurau Sidar S/o Shri Sadram Sidar Aged About 53 Years Occupation - Agriculturist, Residence Of Village Baroli Thana And Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, ... Appellants versus 1 - Vijay Kumar Singh S/o Shri Seetaram Prasad Aged About 42 Years R/o Gandhinagar Balangir, District Balangir (Orissa) (Driver Of Vehicle No. CG-04-DQ-2649) 2 - Raghunath Mahato (Died) Through LRs As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 14-07-2023 2.1 - Krishna Kumar Mahato S/o Late Shri Raghunath Mahato Aged About 35 Years C/o Mahato Transport Gandhinagar, Pada Balangir, District : Balangir, Orissa 3 - United India Insurance Company Limited Pandari Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle No. CG-04-DQ-2649) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Rajendra Patel on behalf of Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate. KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.05.15 17:12:27 +0530 2 (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 13/05/2026 1. The appellants/claimants have preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act, 1988’) calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the award dated 15.11.2019 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.43/2017 by which liability to pay compensation of Rs.6,10,000/- has been fastened on respondents No.1 & 2. However, the Insurance Company was exonerated from liability to pay compensation. In the present Appeal, the appellants/claimants have prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount. 2. Mr. Rajendra Patel, learned counsel for the appellants/ claimants would submit that the Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in not granting just and proper compensation and the liability ought to have been fastened on the Insurance Company, as the driving licence was found to be fake, but the owner of the vehicle namely, Krishna Kumar Mahto has been examined and he has stated that he has verified the licence after being satisfied that the driver of vehicle has proper driving licence and after seeing his driving skills. As such, the Insurance Company may be held liable in the light of decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Nirmala Kothari Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited1. 1 (2020) 4 SCC 49 3 3. On the other hand, Mr. Anupam Dubey, learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company would submit that owner of the vehicle ought to have been examined and since owner has not been examined, in the light of decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Pappu and Others Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another2, even if liability is fastened, principle of pay and recover would apply. 4. Owner and driver of the vehicle (respondents No.1 & 2 herein) remained unrepresented though they are served through paper publication. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. Owner of the vehicle produced driving licence of the driver vide Ex.-NA/4 being licence No.3281/99, issued on 27.12.1999 by the District Transport Officer, Bhagalpur, Bihar. The Claims Tribunal had appointed Commission and examined an officer of the District Transport Officer, Bhagalpur, namely, Shambhunath Das, in which he has stated that the driving licence vide Ex.-NA/4 was not issued by the District Transport Officer, Bhagalpur. Accordingly, on that ground, the Insurance Company was exonerated. 7. However, on behalf of owner of the vehicle, owner has not been examined, but owner’s son namely, Krishna Kumar Mahto has been examined. He has clearly stated that after seeing the 2 (2018) 3 SCC 208 4 driving licence of driver namely, Vijay Kumar Singh, he was engaged by his father to drive the vehicle. As such, he did not have any information with regard to driving licence being forged. He has further stated that driver of the vehicle namely, Vijay Kumar Singh was driving the vehicle for about one and half years. As such, in this regard, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Nirmala Kothari (Supra) may be noticed. Paragraphs 6 & 7 of the said judgment read as under:- “6.Consumer Complaint No. 227 of 2012 was also allowed by the District Forum, vide order dated 28-02-2013 and the respondent insurance company was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- for personal accident claim along with interest @ 9% p.a.from the date of filing the complaint and the cost of litigation of Rs.2500. Being aggrieved against the said order of the District Forum, the respondent insurance company challenged the same by way of Appeal No.366 of 2013 before the State Commission. The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 1-8-2016, the respondent insurance company came before the National Commission by way of Revision Petition No. 3053 of 2016. The National Commission absolved the respondent insurance company of its liability since no record of the licence of the driver was found with the licensing authority. Thus, aggrieved the appellant complainant has come up in appeal. 7. It is the case of the respondent insurance company that in the absence of a valid and effective driving licence with the driver, there was fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question and hence, the claim made by the appellant complainant was not payable. Whereas, it is argued by the appellant complainant that at the time of employing the driver, the documents like driving licence etc. are generally checked but no one usually verifies the genuineness of the same.” 5 8. In the instant case, owner’s son namely, Krishna Kumar Mahto has stated that his father has verified the driving licence of Vijay Kumar Singh and after being satisfied that he is having driving licence issued by the competent authority, he (owner of the vehicle) proceeded to engage him. The said driving licence was found to be forged and proved by the officer of the District Transport Officer, Bhagalpur. In this regard, the Supreme Court in the matter of Pappu and Others (Supra), has considered the said issue in paras-16 & 17 of the judgment which read thus:- “16. The next question is: whether in the fact situation of this case the insurance company can be and ought to be directed to pay the claim amount, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle (respondent 1)? 17. This issue has been answered in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh3. In that case, it was contended by the insurance company that once the defence taken by the insurer is accepted by the Tribunal, it is bound to discharge the insurer and fix the liability only on the owner and/or the driver of the vehicle. However, this Court held that even if the insurer succeeds in establishing its defence, the Tribunal or the court can direct the insurance company to pay the award amount to the claimant(s) and, in turn, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The three-Judge Bench, after analysing the earlier decisions on the point, held that there was no reason to deviate from the said well-settled principle. In para 107, the Court then observed thus: (SCC p.340) “107. We may, however, hasten to add that the Tribunal and the court must, however, exercise their jurisdiction to issue such a direction upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case and in the event 3 (2004) 3 SCC 297 6 such a direction has been issued, despite arriving at a finding of fact to the effect that the insurer has been able to establish that the insured has committed a breach of contract of insurance as envisaged under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act, the insurance company shall be entitled to realize the awarded amount from the owner or driver of the vehicle, as the case may be, in execution of the same award having regard to the provisions of Sections 165 and 168 of the Act. However, in the event, having regard to the limited scope of inquiry in the proceedings before the Tribunal it had not been able to do so, the insurance company may initiate a separate action therefor against the owner or the driver of the vehicle or both, as the case may be. Those exceptional cases may arise when the evidence becomes available to or comes to the notice of the insurer at a subsequent stage or for one reason or the other, the insurer was not given an opportunity to defend at all. Such a course of action may also be resorted to when a fraud or collusion between the victim and the owner of the vehicle is detected or comes to the knowledge of the insurer at a later stage.” and after following the principle laid down in the matter of Swaran Singh (Supra), finally held in para-19 as under:- “19.In the present case, the owner of the vehicle (Respondent 1) had produced the insurance certificate indicating that Vehicle No.DIL 5955 was comprehensively insured by Respondent 2 (insurance company) for unlimited liability. Applying the dictum in National Insurance Co. Ltd (Supra), to subserve the ends of justice, the insurer (Respondent 2) shall pay the claim amount awarded by the Tribunal to the appellants in the first instance, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle (Respondent 1) in accordance with law.” 9. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that doctrine of pay and recover would apply in the present case. As such, the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal fully exonerating the Insurance Company from liability is set aside 7 and it is directed that the claimants shall 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. Income Rs.5,000/- per month Rs.5,000/- x 12 = Rs.60,000/- pa Rs.6,206/- pm Rs.6,206 x 12 = Rs.74,472/- per annum 2. Future prospects - 40% Rs.74,472 + 40% = Rs.1,04,260.8/- 3. Deduction 1/2 x Rs.60,000/- = Rs.30,000/- 1/2 Rs.1,04,260.8/2 = Rs.52,130.4/- 4. Multiplier 18 x 30,000 = Rs.5,40,000/- Rs.52,130.4/- x 18 = 9,38,347.2/- 5. Loss of estate Rs.70,000/- (collectively) Rs.15,000/- 6. Funeral As above Rs.15,000/- 7. Consortium As above Rs.40,000/- x 2 = Rs.80,000/- Total Rs.6,10,000/- Rs.10,48,347.2 rounded off Rs. 10,48,347/- 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹6,10,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹10,48,347/- . Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹6,10,000/- , the claimants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of 4,38,347/- ₹ . The respondent/Insurance Company is directed to first pay the amount of compensation to the claimants within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter recover the same 8 from the owner of the vehicle. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% 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. 11. With the aforesaid modifications, the Appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Barve