1 2026:CGHC:23177 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 131 of 2019 1 - Chhamendra Verma S/o Shankar Singh Verma Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Kanteli, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Bharat Mishra S/o Laxman Prasad Mishra Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Singhauri, Bemetara, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Narendra Prasad Mishra S/o Lochan Prasad Mishra Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Bhansuli, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Pooja Mishra W/o Narendra Prasad Mishra Aged About 44 HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2026.05.15 16:52:14 +0530 2 Years R/o Village Bhansuli, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 3 - Hitendra Kumar Sahu S/o Parasram Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Durg Road, Ward No. 12, Behind Krishi Office, Singhauri, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager, Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhansabha Road, Pandari District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Vipin Singh, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 and 2 : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Kyati Adil on behalf of Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate MAC No. 406 of 2020 1 - Narendra Prasad Mishra S/o Lochan Prasad Mishra Aged About 47 Years Resident Of Village Bhansuli, Tahsil And District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 3 2 - Pooja Mishra W/o Narendra Prasad Mishra Aged About 44 Years Resident Of Village Bhansuli, Tahsil And District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh … Appellant(s) versus 1 - Chhamendra Verma S/o Shanker Singh Verma Aged About 19 Years Resident Of Village Kanteli, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh, 2 - Bharat Mishra S/o Laxman Prasad Mishra Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Ward No. 13, Singhauri, Bemetara, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 3 - Hitendra Kumar Sahu S/o Parasram Sahu Aged About 45 Years Resident Of Durg Road, Ward No. 12, Behind Krishi Office, Singhauri, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 4 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager, Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhansabha Road, Pandri, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate 4 SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 15.05.2026 1. Since common question of law and fact is involved in both these appeals and since they have arised out of a common accident, therefore, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. MAC/131/2019 has been preferred by the driver and owner of the vehicle whereas MAC/406/2020 has been preferred by the claimants, challenging the impugned award dated 27/10/2018 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara in Claim Case No. 08/2018 whereby compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been awarded in favour of the appellants/claimants for the injuries suffered by them and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the driver and owner of the vehicle though the Insurance Company has been directed to firstly pay 5 the compensation to the claimants and thereafter, recover it from the driver and owner of the vehicle. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants/driver and owner in MAC/131/2019 would submit that the driver of the vehicle did have valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident and though he possessed learner’s license but he was accompanied by instructor Bharat Mishra (N.A.W-1) who has clearly stated the same in his statement before the Court, as such, the Claims Tribunal has erred in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability of payment of compensation and fastening the liability upon the appellants/driver and owner. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants in MAC/406/2020 would submit that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is grossly inadequate, therefore, it may suitably be enhanced. 5. Learned counsel for respondent/Insurance Company in both the cases would submit that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and 6 does not warrant any interference by this Court and the Claims Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability of payment of compensation, as such, both the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. MAC No. 131 of 2019 :- 7. A careful perusal of the record would show that on the date of the accident, driver of the vehicle namely Chhamendra Verma possessed learner’s license (Ex. P.N.A. 4) and it has duly been stated by Bharat Mishra (N.A.W.-1) that he has valid and effective driving license and on the date of the accident he was sitting along with the driver in the vehicle as an instructor. 8. The Supreme Court, in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Others1, has clearly held that when a vehicle is being driven by a learner subject to the conditions mentioned in the 1 (2004) 3 SCC 297 7 licence, he would not be a person who is not “duly licensed” resulting in conferring a right on the insurer to avoid the claim of the third party. It has been observed in paragraph 93 as under :- “93. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for grant of learner's licence. [See Section 4(3), Section 7(2), Section 10(3) and Section 14]. A learner's licence is, thus, also a licence within the meaning of the provisions of the said Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that a vehicle when being driven by a learner subject to the conditions mentioned in the licence, he would not be a person who is not “duly licensed” resulting in conferring a right on the insurer to avoid the claim of the third party. It cannot be said that a person holding a learner's licence is not entitled to drive the vehicle. Even if there exists a condition in the contract of insurance that the vehicle cannot be driven by a person holding a learner's licence, the same would run counter to the provisions of Section 149(2) of the said Act. ” 9. In light of the principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Swaran Singh (supra), though the driver of the vehicle was holding learner’s license on the date of the accident, but it cannot be said that he was driving the vehicle in breach 8 of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as he was duly accompanied by an instructor which has been proved by Bharat Mishra (N.A.W.-1), as such, the Claims Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability of payment of compensation upon the driver and owner. The said finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal is hereby set aside. 10. MAC No. 406 of 2020 :- 11. So far as the appeal of the appellants/claimants is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has held that the medical expense incurred by the claimants while undergoing treatment is Rs. 1,52,072/-, therefore, considering the loss of earning during treatment, pain and suffering, transportation, special diet, attendant’s fees and other heads, etc., granted a lump sum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- in favour of the claimants for the injuries suffered by them, which seems to be on the lower side. Thus, I deem it appropriate to award additional sum of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the claimants which will be deposited by the Insurance Company along with the 9 compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 06.01.2018 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact except for the principle of pay and recover which is hereby set aside and it is held that Insurance Company would be liable to make payment of entire amount of compensation to the claimants. 8. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified and both the appeals are allowed to the extent indicated herein- above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet