1 CGHC010067272026 2026:CGHC:30475 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 574 of 2026 1 - The New India Assurance Company Limited Through Its Assistant Manager, Tp Claim Hub, Present And Correct Address The New India Assurance Company Limited 2nd Floor, Rama Trade Center, Above Axis Bank, Opposite Rajeev Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Devki Yadav W/o Late Purshottam Yadav, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Banabghera, Mudhipar, P.S. Somani, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kunjlal Yadav S/o Late Purshottam Yadav, Aged About 8 Years, Minor Through Its Guardian Mother Smt. Devki Yadav, W/o Late Purushottam Yadav, R/o Village Banabghera, Mudhipar, P.S. Somani, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Nayan Yadav S/o Late Purshottam Yadav, Aged About 5 Years, Minor Through Its Guardian Mother Smt. Devki Yadav, W/o Late Purushottam Yadav, R/o Village Banabghera, Mudhipar, P.S. Somani, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sevaram Yadav S/o Dheeraji Yadav, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Village Banabghera, Mudhipar, P.S. Somani, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Sukwaro Bai Yadav W/o Sevaram Yadav, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Village Banabghera, Mudhipar, P.S. Somani, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Ganesh Prasad Janghel S/o Late Itwari Janghel, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village Ward No. 8 Bajrangpara, Near Limha Talab, Kohka, Supela, Bhilai, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Smt. Champa Bai Verma W/o Dileshwar Kumar Verma, Aged SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.07.20 10:28:12 +0530 2 About 34 Years, R/o Village Rasmada, P.S. Anjora, Pulgaon, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Ms. Harneet Kaur Khanuja, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 5 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate For Respondents No.6 & 7 : Mr. P.K. Patel, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. ) Order On Board 17/07/2026 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the insurer against award dated 04.09.2025 passed by the Learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District Durg (C.G.), in MACT Case No. 449/2024, whereby compensation of Rs. 26,13,894/-, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, has been awarded in favour of the claimants, and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant–Insurance Company. 2. The facts, in brief, necessary for disposal of the present appeal, are that on 25.08.2024, at about 4:45 p.m., the deceased, Purushottam Yadav alias Tilak Yadav, was proceeding cautiously on the left side of the road from Village Nawagaon towards Village Mudhipar on Motorcycle along with his friend Bhupendra Kumar Manikpuri as a pillion rider. When they reached near the Mudhipar Railway Crossing, the driver (respondent No. 6 herein) of Dumper bearing Registration No. CG-12-BE-7795 (offending vehicle) , while driving the said vehicle at a high speed and in a rash and negligent 3 manner, dashed against the motorcycle, thereby causing the accident. As a result of the said accident, Purushottam Yadav sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same at the spot. On the basis of the report lodged in respect of the accident, an offence was registered against the driver at the concerned Police Station and a charge-sheet was subsequently filed before the competent Court. 3. The claimants, who are the parents, wife and children of the deceased, preferred a claim application before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.72,20,000/-. Learned Claims Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence available on record, award total compensation of Rs.26,13,894/- in favour of the claimants, from the date of application till its realization. While passing the impugned award, the Tribunal has fastened the liability of payment of compensation upon the Insurance Company against which the present appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company contends that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is contrary to law based on the evidence available on record. She further contends that the ownership of the offending vehicle had been transferred in favour of the present owner, namely Smt. Champa Bai Verma (respondent No. 7 herein), on 21.08.2024. However, although the ownership stood transferred, the permit was not transferred in the name of respondent No. 7 by the Transport Authority. It is further submitted that respondent No. 7 applied for the transfer/grant of the permit only on 27.08.2024, i.e., after the 4 accident, whereas the accident had occurred on 25.08.2024. Thus, on the date of the accident, no valid and effective permit existed in the name of respondent No. 7, and the offending vehicle was being plied in violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as well as in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. She would rely upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh and Another v. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and Others 1 and submit that at the most, the Claims Tribunal could have directed the appellant (Insurance Company) to firstly pay the compensation to the Claimants and thereafter, recover it from the Owner and Driver of the offending vehicle, however, the Claims Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant (Insurance Company) in absence of valid permit on the date of accident, as such, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents opposes the contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned order/judgment passed by the learned Claims tribunal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. The question involved in this appeal is, whether the Insurance Company can be held liable for payment of compensation even though the accident occurred on 25.08.2024 and the permit was 1 (2018) 7 SCC 558 5 not transferred in the name of Smt. Champa Bai Verma i.e. respondent No. 7 herein on the date of accident ? 8. In this regard, Section 82 of the Act of 1988 may be noticed herein profitably which defines transfer of permit as under :- "82. Transfer of permit. (1) Save as provided in sub- section (2), a permit shall not be transferable from one person to another except with the permission of the transport authority which granted the permit and shall not, without such permission, operate to confer on any person to whom vehicle covered by the permit is transferred any right to use that vehicle in the manner authorised by the permit. (2) Where the holder of a permit dies, the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle covered by the permit may, for a period of three months, use the permit as if it had been granted to himself : Provided that such person has, within thirty days of the death of the holder, informed the transport authority which granted the permit of the death of the holder and of his own intention to use the permit: Provided further that no permit shall be used after the date on which it would have ceased to be effective without renewal in the hands of the deceased holder. (3) The transport authority may, on application made to it within three months of the death of the holder of a permit, transfer the permit to the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicles covered by the permit: Provided that the transport authority may entertain an application made after the expiry of the said period of three months if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making an application within the time specified." 9. A careful perusal of Section 82(1) of the Act of 1988 would show that a permit shall not be transferable from person to another except with the permission of the transport authority which granted the permit and Section 82(1) also reiterates that it shall not, without such permission, operate to confer on any person to whom a vehicle covered by the permit is transferred any right to 6 use that vehicle in the manner authorised by the permit. Section 82(1) of the Act of 1988 is pari materia to provision contained under Section 59(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Ravi Roadways v. Asia BI and Others 2 , Exercise of the power to sanction the transfer of a permit under Section 59(1) of the Act of 1939 is quasi-judicial, and the State Government is not competent to impose any restriction upon the exercise of that power by issuing executive instructions. As such, unless the permit is transferred in the name of new owner, it cannot operate automatically in his favour even though the vehicle has been transferred in his name. 10. Coming to the facts of the present case in the light of Section 82(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is evident that although the ownership of the offending vehicle had been transferred in the name of Smt. Champa Bai Verma, respondent No. 7 herein, the permit was not transferred in her favour by the Transport Authority. The records further reveal that respondent No. 7 applied for the transfer/grant of the permit only after the accident, i.e., on 27.08.2024. Consequently, on the date of the accident, i.e., 25.08.2024, no valid and effective permit was in force in her favour, and the permit issued in the name of the erstwhile owner had already lapsed and ceased to operate by virtue of Section 82(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thus, on the date of the accident, the offending vehicle was being plied without a valid and effective permit, in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the appellant (Insurance Company) would not be 2 1970 (2) SCC 259 7 liable to make payment for compensation to respondents No. 1 to 5/Claimants. 11. In view of the reasons mentioned herein-above, the impugned judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal to the extent of fastening of liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant/Insurance Company is hereby set aside. However, in light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh (supra), the appellant (Insurance Company) is directed to firstly pay the amount of compensation to respondents No. 1 to 5/Claimants and thereafter, recover it from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle i.e. respondents No. 6 and 7 herein. 12.Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant/insurance company is allowed. The appellant/insurance company is exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation to the claimants. The driver and owner (respondents No.6 & 7) shall be liable to pay the entire awarded compensation to the claimants. It is directed that the Appellant/insurance company shall first pay the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants and then recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 13.Record of the Tribunal be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/-d/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE $ourabh