1 2026:CGHC:2470 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 397 of 2021 * - Bhairuram S/o Saamnath Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Sosanpal Police Station Frejarpur Tahsil Tokapal, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager Branch Office Jagdalpur, (Insurance Co.), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Manbati W/o Late Nakulram Aged About 40 Years Caste Panara R/o Village Baila Bazar Danteshwari Ward Jagdalpur, (Legal Representative Of Driver Of The Vehicle), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Renuka D/o Late Nakulram Aged About 20 Years Caste Panara R/o Village Baila Bazar Danteshwari Ward Jagdalpur, (Legal Representative Of Driver Of The Vehicle), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Baijanti D/o Late Nakulram Aged About 19 Years Caste Panara R/o Village Baila Bazar Danteshwari Ward Jagdalpur, (Legal Representative Of Driver Of The Vehicle), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Naresh S/o Late Nakulram Aged About 18 Years Caste Panara R/o Village Baila Bazar Danteshwari Ward Jagdalpur, (Legal Representative Of Driver Of The Vehicle), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Dropadi Nag W/o Late Jalandhar Nag Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Sosananpal Kotwarpara Tahsil Tokapal Jagdalpur, (Legal Representative Of Owner Of The Vehicle), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 7 - Ku. Geeta D/o Late Jalandhar Nag Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Sosananpal Kotwarpara Tahsil Tokapal Jagdalpur, (Legal Representative Of Owner Of The Vehicle), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 8 - Ranjeeta Nag D/o Late Jalandhar Nag Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Sosananpal Kotwarpara Tahsil Tokapal Jagdalpur, (Legal Representative Of Owner Of The Vehicle), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant/claimant : Mr. Vikas A Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No. 1/ Insurance Company For Respondents No. 2 to 8/ : : Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate None, though served Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.01.16 18:15:13 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 15/01/2026 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the award passed by the IInd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, District Bastar in Claim Case No. 166/2018 dated 28.01.2021, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs.2,51,402/- on account of injuries sustained by him and fastened the liability with the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 2. During the course of pendency of claim application, Nakulram- driver of the offending vehicle and Jalandhar- owner of the offending vehicle have died and their legal representatives have been brought on record. 3. The facts, in brief, are that on 11.02.2010 when claimant was going Kodenaar weekly market for his business in a Commander Jeep bearing registration No. CG-17-T/0108, the driver of the said Commander Jeep by driving it rashly and negligently, turned it turtle in front of bicycle-shop at village Aarapur, resultantly, the claimant sustained injuries including fracture of tibia and fabula bone of right leg. An F.I.R. under Sections of 279 and 337 IPC was lodged against the driver of the offending vehicle Commander Jeep at Police Station Kodenaar. 4. Mr. Vikas A Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would submit that on 11.02.2010 when claimant was going Kodenaar weekly market in a Commander Jeep bearing registration No. CG-17-T/0108, its driver drove it rashly and negligently, resultantly, it turned turtle and he sustained injuries. He would submit 3 that the claimant filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and claimed a sum of Rs.45 lacs. He would further submit that in the accident, the claimant suffered fracture of tibia and fabula bone of right leg which resulted in permanent disability to the extent of 57%. Mr. Shrivastava would contend that the learned Claims Tribunal considered functional disability of the claimant 19%. The Tribunal assessed his income Rs.6,000/- per month. He would further contend that the learned Claims Tribunal further granted a sum of Rs.58,562/- for medical expenses; Rs.10,000/- for special diet and Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering. He would contend that the learned Claims Tribunal failed to grant proper compensation for pain and suffering; conveyance; attendant and loss of earning as the claimant remained in bed for period of 02 months. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly. 5. Mr. Shrivastava would further submit that the learned Claims Tribunal absolved the liability of the Insurance Company only on the ground that the driver of the offending Commander Jeep did not have a valid and effective driving licence. He would submit that in such a situation, the learned Claims Tribunal should have applied the principle of ‘pay and recover’ as same has been enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shamanna and Another Vs. Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others reported in AIR 2018 SC 3726. He would pray for a direction to the Insurance Company to satisfy the award first and recover it from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Qamrul Aziz, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/Insurance Company would oppose. Mr. Qamrul Aziz 4 would contend that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly absolved liability of Insurance Company as the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licence. He would contend that the learned Claims Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the learned Claims Tribunal with utmost circumspection. 8. In the present case, the liability of Insurance Company has been absolved only on the ground that on the date of accident, the driver did not have endorsement in his driving licence to drive transport vehicle. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shamanna (supra) held that when driver of vehicle does not possess valid driving license, Insurer would be liable to pay compensation amount to claimants and recover the same from owner of the vehicle. Relevant paras 10 and 12 of the aforementioned judgment are reproduced herein-below :- “10. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Brij Mohan and others (2007) 7 SCC 56: (AIR 2007 SC 1971), the claimant was travelling in the trolley attached to tractor carrying earth to brick kiln. It was found that the tractor and the trolley were not used for "agricultural works", the only purpose for which the tractor was insured, when the claimant sustained the injuries. The Supreme Court though held that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation, however, invoked the power vested in the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in directing the insurance company to satisfy the award by paying compensation to the insured/claimant and realise the same from the owner of the tractor. 12. Since the reference to the larger bench in Parvathneni case has been disposed of by keeping the questions of law open to be decided in an appropriate case, presently the decision in Swaran Singh case (AIR 2004 SC 1531) followed in Laxmi Narain Dhut (AIR 2007 SC 1563) and other cases hold the field. The award passed by the Tribunal directing the insurance company to pay the compensation amount awarded to 5 the claimants and thereafter, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in question, is in accordance with the judgment passed by this Court in Swaran Singh and Laxmi Narain Dhut cases. While so, in our view, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the award passed by the Tribunal directing the first respondent to pay and recover from the owner of the vehicle. The impugned judgment of the High Court exonerating the insurance company from its liability and directing the claim-ants to recover the compensation from the owner of the vehicle is set aside and the award passed by the Tribunal is restored. 10. Taking into consideration the fact that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and liability of Insurance Company has been absolved on the ground that on the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle did not have endorsement in his driving licence to drive transport vehicle; such a finding appears to be erroneous. The learned Claims Tribunal should have directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the award first and recover it from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is modified to that extent. The Insurance Company shall make payment of compensation to the claimant and thereafter recover it from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 11. With regard to enhancement of compensation, the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/- per month. The claimant has pleaded and proved that he remained in bed for period of 02 months, but the learned Claims Tribunal has not granted compensation for loss of earning. 12. As the monthly income of the claimant has been assessed Rs.6,000/- per month, the claimant would be entitled to get a sum of Rs.12,000/- for loss of earning as he remained in bed for 02 months. The Medical Board has assessed permanent disability to the extent of 57%, but the 6 learned Claims Tribunal considered functional disability to the extent of 19% and awarded compensation accordingly. I do not find any scope to interfere with such finding. 13. Perusal of the award would show that the learned Claims Tribunal has not granted compensation for conveyance and attendant to the claimant and further awarded meager amount for pain and suffering. The claimant would be entitled for sum of Rs.5,000/- for conveyance; Rs.10,000/- for attendant and further sum of Rs.20,000/- for pain and suffering and in total the claimant would be entitled to receive Rs.42,000/-. 14. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr.No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Compensation on account of disability Rs.1,77,840/- Rs.1,77,840/- 2. Medical Expenses/ Special diet Rs.68,562/- Rs.68,562/- 3. For pain and suffering Rs.5,000/- Rs.20,000/- 4. For loss of earning for 02 months - Nil - Rs.12,000/- 5. For conveyance - Nil - Rs.5,000/- 6. For attendant - Nil - Rs.10,000/- Total: Rs.2,51,402/- Rs.2,93,402/- 7 15. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.2,51,402/- awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,93,402/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.2,51,402/-, the appellant/claimant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.42,000/-. The Insurance Company shall first indemnify the award and thereafter recover it from owner and driver of the offending vehicle in accordance with law. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% 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. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the impugned award to the above extent. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti