1 2026:CGHC:22218 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1594 of 2019 Rakesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shankar Lal Sharma Aged About 39 Years R/o Bazar Mohalla, Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh (Owner), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant Versus 1 - Bhupendra Yadav S/o Kaushal Prasad Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o Lakhanpur Futrapara, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ( Driver ), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Jamuna Bai W/o Late Dubraj Singh, Caste Gond, R/o Village Kouvatal Binjhra, Tahsil Podi Uproda, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Pardesi S/o Dubraj Singh Aged About 25 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Kouvatal Binjhra, Tahsil Podi Uproda, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ankar Kumar S/o Late Dubraj Singh Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Mother Smt. Jamuna Bai, Caste Gond, R/o Village Kouvatal Binjhra, Tahsil Podi Uproda, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5 - United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Office T. P. Nagar, Korba, Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate For Respondents No.2 to 4 : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.05 : Mr. RN Pusty and Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocates ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WITH SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN 2 MAC No. 1753 of 2019 1 - Jamuna Bai W/o Late Dubraj Singh Aged About 40 Years Caste - Gond, R/o Kauvatal Binjhara, Tehsil - Podi Uproda, District - Korba Chhattisgarh. 2 - Pardeshi S/o Late Dubraj Singh Aged About 27 Years Caste - Gond, R/o Kauvatal Binjhara, Tehsil - Podi Uproda, District - Korba Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ankar Kumar (Minor) S/o Late Dubraj Singh Aged About 10 Years Through Mother - Smt. Jamuna Bai W/o Late Dubraj Singh, Caste - Gond, R/o Kauvatal Binjhara, Tehsil - Podi Uproda, District - Korba Chhattisgarh. ---Appellants Versus 1 - Bhupendra Yadav S/o Kaushal Prasad Yadav Aged About 27 Years R/o Lakanpur Futrapara, Tehsil - Katghora, District - Korba Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rakesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shankar Lal Sharma Aged About 27 Years R/o Bazar Mohalla, Katghora, District - Korba Chhattisgarh. 3 - United India Insurance Company Ltd., Through - Branch Manager, Office, T. P. Nagar, Korba, District - Korba Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellants : Mr. KR Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dharmesh Srivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. RN Pusty and Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocates ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 12.05.2026 1. Regard being had to the similitude of the questions of fact and law involved and being arising out of a common accident, on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, both these appeals are clubbed together, heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 2. MAC-1594-2019 has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor 3 Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) at the instance of the owner of the offending vehicle challenging the impugned award dt. 26.06.2019, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the ground that the owner of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective permit to ply the same on the date of accident and applied the principle of pay and recover. Whereas, MAC-1753- 2019 has also been filed under Section 173 of the Act of 1988 at the instance of the claimants challenging the same award dated 26.06.2019, whereby though learned Claims Tribunal has calculated a total sum of Rs.9,30,000/- as compensation, but deducted 50% amount towards contributory negligence and only granted Rs.4,65,000/- as compensation to the claimants. 3. Mr. Ashish Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the Owner of the offending vehicle submits that learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in fastening the liability to pay compensation on the Owner of the offending vehicle and thereby exonerating the insurance company, as according to Ex.D/3, payment of issuance of regular permit of the vehicle was made on 21.03.2017. Though, accident took place on the same day i.e. on 21.03.2017, but non-issuance of the permit by the Regional Transport Officer (RTO), the owner of the vehicle cannot be made liable to pay the compensation. As such, to that extent the impugned award is liable to the set aside. 4. Mr. RN Pusty, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that as per FIR (Ex.P/1), accident took place on 4 21.03.2017 at 10 AM and payment of fee for grant of regular permit was made by the owner of the offending vehicle on 21.03.2017 at about 05:33 PM vide Ex.D/3 in order to cover up the lacuna and get the compensation from the Insurance Company. Therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability to pay compensation to the claimants, as at the time of accident, the owner of the offending vehicle was not having valid permit to ply the same. 5. Mr. KR Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the Claimants in MAC-1753-2019, would submit that learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in deducting 50% amount on the ground of contributory negligence, as there is no evidence available on record to substantiate the said fact. Though, the owner and the insurance company took plea that the deceased was also negligent in the accident, but no evidence has been led to prove the same. As such, the appeal filed by the Claimants be allowed, as they are entitled for full amount of compensation. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. Appeal of the Owner i.e. MAC-1594-2019: 7. The only ground taken by the owner of the offending vehicle is that the necessary fee for issuance of permit was already made on 21.03.2017 vide Ex.D/3, but on account of non-issuance of valid permit 5 by the RTO and meanwhile accident took place, owner of the offending vehicle cannot be made liable to pay compensation. However, a careful perusal of the record would show that as per FIR (Ex.P/01) accident took place on 21.03.2017 at about 10 AM and, according to Ex.D/3, proved by Sanjay Vastrakar, Officer from Regional Transport Office, Korba, the necessary fee for issuance of regular permit for the offending vehicle was made on 21.03.2017 at about 05:33 PM and, as such, payment of fee for issuance of permit was made after the accident in question already took place in the morning at about 10 AM and, thereafter, the permit was issued to the owner of the offending vehicle from 13.04.2017 to 12.04.2022. As such, it is quite clear that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was being plied without having valid and effective permit and, consequently, in light of decision of the Supreme Court in Amrit Paul Singh and another v. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others 1 the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly applied the doctrine of pay and recover. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the said finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal, as the same is based on evidence available on record. Thus, the appeal filed by the owner of the offending vehicle being MAC- 1594-2019 liable to be dismissed being meritless. Appeal of the Claimants i.e. MAC-1753-2019: 8. The only contention has been raised by the Claimants is that 50% amount has wrongly been deducted on the ground of contributory negligence. However, a careful perusal of the record would show that 1 (2018) 7 SCC 558 6 though owner and insurance company took the said plea of contributory negligence, but not evidence has been led to substantiate the said fact on behalf of the owner of the vehicle. Though, two witnesses, namely, Sunil Mohan Tiwari and Sanjay Vastrakar have been examined on behalf of the Insurance Company, but they have only been examined on the point of issuance of permit. There is no evidence available on record to show that in any way the deceased was negligent and contributed in the accident in question and, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in deducting 50% amount of the ground of contributory negligence, whereas, the claimants are entitled for full compensation i.e. Rs.9,30,000/-. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the Claimants are entitled for full compensation i.e. Rs.9,30,000/- and the findings relating to deduction of 50% amount on the ground of contributory negligence is hereby quashed. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 10. Accordingly, the appeal of the owner i.e. MAC-1594-2019 is hereby dismissed, whereas the appeal of the claimants i.e. MAC- 1753-2019 is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if