1 2026:CGHC:23787 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 674 of 2020 1 - National Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office Mobin Mahal, 2nd Floor, G.E. Road, Post Box No. 122 Pin No. 492001 Tehsil And District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Through Its T.P. Hub Incharge, Office- Vyapar Vihar Road, Above Canara Bank, Bilaspur 495001. ... Appellant/respondent No.2 versus 1 - Smt. Rewati Sahu Wd/o Sukhram Sahu, Aged About 34 Years By Caste Teli, Occupation Dependent, R/o Village Shiladei, P.S. Kosir, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2 - Kumari Shrishti Sahu, D/o. Late Shri Sukhram Sahu, Aged About 12 Years Minor, Represented Through Natural Guardian And Mother Smt. Revati Sahu, Wd/o Late Sukh Ram Sahu, By Caste Teli, Occupation Dependent, R/o Village Shiladei, P.S. Kosir, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 3 - Jivanlal Sahu, S/o Late Shri Ramnath Sahu, Aged About 58 Years By Caste Teli, Occupation Dependent, R/o Village Shiladei, P.S. Kosir, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Budhiyarin Sahu, W/o Shri Jivan Lal Sahu, Aged About 57 Years By Caste Teli, Occupation Dependent, R/o Village Shiladei, P.S. Kosir, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Respondents 1 to 4/Claimants) 5 - Anju Agrawal, W/o Shri Anil Agarwal, Caste Agrawal, Occupation Employer/ Vehicle Owner, R/o Annapurna Transport, Near Prabhat Talkies, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh..................Respondent No. 1 ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. RN Pusty, Advocate For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr. Roop Naik, Advocate For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2026.06.18 14:42:25 +0530 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 15.06.2026 1. This appeal under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act 1923’) has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company, challenging impugned Order dated 05.10.2019 passed by the Commissioner, Employees Compensation Act-cum- Labour Court, Raigarh (for short ‘the Labour Court’) in Case No.12/EC Act/2018/fatal, whereby the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company for payment of Rs.7,36,680/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the claimants/respondents 1 to 4 from the date of filing of the application till its realization. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the claimants/respondents 1 to 4 filed an application under Section 10 of the Act 1923 for grant of compensation of Rs.10 lakh, on account of death of Sukhram Sahu (husband/father/son of the claimants), aged about 40 years, who was the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.(HGV) CG 04 JC/2901, owned by respondent No.5. On 24.12.2016, while the deceased was discharging his duties and transporting iron in the said vehicle, the vehicle developed a mechanical fault and stopped. During the course of repairing the vehicle by the deceased, it allegedly started suddenly and crushed his leg, resulting in grievous injuries. The deceased subsequently succumbed to the said injuries during treatment on 22.01.2017. 3. The learned Labour Court on close scrutiny of evidence laid, material placed and submissions made by the parties, held that deceased Sukhram Shau was employee of respondent No.5 and he died during course of employment. The learned Labour Court further held that aforesaid vehicle 3 was insured by the appellant/Insurance Company and it has failed to prove that any breach of policy conditions had been established, as such, the appellant/Insurance company was held liable for payment of compensation to the claimants and awarded aforesaid sum as compensation to the claimants. The learned Labour Court also imposed penalty of Rs.1,84,170/- upon respondent No.5, owner of the offending vehicle. Being aggrieved by the fastening of liability upon the appellant–Insurance Company, the present appeal has been preferred. 4. This appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Labour Court, Raigarh was justified in fastening liability upon the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimants. 2. Whether the Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Labour Court, Raigarh, is justified in placing burden on Insurance Company to prove the fact that there is breach of condition of insurance policy. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that neither the claimants nor the owner of the offending vehicle/respondent No.5 pleaded nor proved that, at the time of the accident, deceased Sukhram Sahu, possessed a valid and effective driving licence. Rather, during the course of trial, the claimants filed only photocopy of the driving licence of Sukhram Sahu along with photocopies of the permit, fitness certificate and insurance policy of the offending vehicle. He further submits that photocopy of the permit itself shows that the unladen weight of offending vehicle was 8000 Kg and its laden weight was 25000 Kg. The photocopy of the driving licence shows that it was valid for driving a transport vehicle only up to 09.10.2015, thus, it was not valid on the date of accident i.e. on 4 24.12.2016. Though the licence remained valid for non-transport vehicles up to 18.08.2018, the permit filed by the claimants clearly demonstrates that the offending vehicle was a Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV), for which the deceased did not possess a valid and effective licence on the date of the accident. This constitutes a clear breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Learned counsel further contends that, though the Insurance Company did not examine any witness, it specifically pleaded in paragraph 13 of its written statement that the deceased was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle on the date of the accident. He further submits that it is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the primary onus to plead and prove the fact that the driver was having valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, lies upon the claimants and the owner of the offending vehicle and once they fulfill their primary liability, then only the onus will shift upon the insurance company to prove the breach of policy condition. In the present case, neither the claimants nor the owner of the offending vehicle, pleaded or proved that the deceased driver was having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident. Despite these facts, the leaned Labour Court fastened liability to pay compensation upon the Insurance Company, whereas there is specific breach of policy condition, which stand established from the photocopy of the documents filed by the claimants themselves. The learned Labour Court failed to appreciate this material aspect of the matter. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal be allowed and the Insurance Company be exonerated from its liability to pay compensation. 6. In reply, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5/owner of the offending vehicle, submits that Insurance Company has neither filed insurance policy nor examined any witness to prove the fact that there was 5 violation of any policy condition. It was further submitted that the Insurance Company did not file any application before the Court for production of any documents relating to the offending vehicle or the driving licence of the deceased. He further submits that since the claim was filed under Workmen’s Compensation Act, therefore, only relevant considerations as to whether the vehicle was insured and whether the employer-employee relationship between the deceased and respondent No. 5 stood established. In the present case, the Insurance Company has admitted that the offending vehicle was duly insured with it. Moreover, the Labour Court has recorded a finding that an employer-employee relationship existed between the deceased Sukhram Sahu and respondent No. 5. Hence, it is submitted that there is no error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court, therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4/claimants would support the submissions advanced by learned counsel for respondent No.5. He further submitted that even if this Court comes to the conclusion that there has been a violation of any policy condition, the interests of the claimants ought to be protected by directing the appellant/Insurance Company to satisfy the award in the first instance and thereafter recover the amount from respondent No. 5, the owner of the offending vehicle, in accordance with law. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was insured by the appellant/insurance company at the time of the accident. 10. Perusal of the claim application filed by respondents 1 to 4/claimants and reply filed by respondent No.5/owner of the offending vehicle, reveal that they have not specifically pleaded that the deceased was holding a valid and 6 effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Further, neither the claimants nor respondent No. 5 have produced or proved the original or certified copy of the driving licence of the deceased, nor have they filed and proved the original documents relating to the offending vehicle. Respondent No. 5 has also not entered the witness box to establish the aforesaid facts. Rather, the claimants have only filed photocopy of the driving licence of the deceased Sukhram Sahu, photocopies of the permit, fitness certificate and insurance policy of the offending vehicle. 11. A perusal of the photocopy of the driving licence of the deceased shows that it was valid for driving a transport vehicle upto 09.10.2015 and a non-transport vehicle till 18.8.2018. Though the Registration Certificate of offending vehicle has not been filed by any of the parties, but photocopy of the permit of the offending vehicle shows that the unladen weight of offending vehicle was 8000 Kg and its laden weight was 25000 Kg, meaning thereby that the offending vehicle was a Heavy Goods Vehicle/Transport Vehicle. However, as per the photocopy of the driving licence relied upon by the claimants, the deceased was authorised to drive a transport vehicle/Heavy Goods Vehicle only up to 09.10.2015. Therefore, on the date of the accident, i.e., 24.12.2016, the deceased did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending Heavy Goods Vehicle/transport vehicle. 12. Though the appellant/Insurance Company has not adduced any ocular or documentary evidence before the Labour Court to substantiate its contention, but Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297, has noticed that the defences available to the insurance company under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Insurance Company is entitled to take a defence that that offending vehicle was driven by an unauthorised person or 7 the person driving the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence. The onus would shift on the insurance company only after the owner of the offending vehicle pleads and proves the basic facts within his knowledge that the driver of the offending vehicle was authorised by him to drive the vehicle and was having a valid driving licence at the relevant time. This observation has further been relied upon by the Apex Court in the case of Pappu and Others vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another, (2018) 3 SCC 208. 13. In the instant case, as has been stated in the preceding paragraph that, neither the claimants nor the respondent No.5/owner of the offending vehicle, have pleaded or proved that deceased Sukhram Sahu was having valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Furthermore, respondent No. 5, the owner of the vehicle, did not enter the witness box to establish the said fact. Though the appellant/Insurance Company also did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence on this aspect, the primary onus to prove that the deceased held a valid and effective driving licence rest upon the owner of the vehicle. Since respondent No. 5 failed to discharge this burden, it cannot be said that the onus shifted to the Insurance Company to prove the contrary, particularly when the Insurance Company had specifically denied in its written statement that the deceased possessed a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Thus, the learned Labour Court was not justified in placing the primary burden upon the Insurance Company to prove the fact that there is breach of condition of insurance policy. However, the learned Labour Court failed to consider the aforesaid legal position and erroneously fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company to pay compensation, contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Consequently, the appellant/Insurance Company is entitled to be exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation awarded. 8 14. Accordingly, both the substantial questions of law are answered in ‘Negative’, i.e. in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company and against respondent No. 5, the owner of the offending vehicle. 15. Though the appellant/Insurance Company is entitled to get exonerated from the payment of compensation on account of breach of policy condition, but it is not in dispute that the deceased was having driving licence to drive Heavy Goods Vehicle/Transport vehicle, though validity period of the same was expired few months prior to the date of accident and the appellant/Insurance company has failed to establish that respondent No.5/owner of the vehicle had deliberately failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter to fulfill the condition of the policy regarding use of offending vehicle by the deceased. Moreover, the deceased and the claimants belong to poor financial strata including young widow, minor children and aged parents. Therefore, relying upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Swaran Singh (supra), this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be served, if order of “Pay and Recover” is passed in favour of the claimants. 16. For the foregoing discussion, the appeal is allowed in part. The part of the impugned order by which the liability has been fastened upon the appellant/Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimants is set aside. However, the appellant/ Insurance Company is directed to pay the entire compensation amount along with interest to the claimants in the first instance and shall thereafter be entitled to recover the same from respondent No. 5 as per the law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Swaran Singh (Supra). As per the record, the amount of compensation along with interest has already been deposited by the Insurance Company before the Labour Court. 9 17. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned order is modified to the above extent. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned order shall remain intact. The appellant/Insurance Company is entitled to recover the amount deposited by it by filing execution petition before the concerned Labour Court. Recrod of the Labour Court be returned along with a copy of this order. 18. Interlocutory application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini