1 CGHC010332502021 2026:CGHC:32897 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 836 of 2021 The New India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office - First Floor, Hall No.4 A. Commercial Complex, New Bus Stand, Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Niran Wife Of Late Deenu Chhedia Aged About 25 Years Resident Of Village Kohkatta, O.P. Mohara, Thana And Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Kunwariya Wife Of Mangiram Chhedia Aged About 56 Years Resident Of Village Kohkatta, O.P. Mohara, Thana And Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 - Devesh Son Of Late Deenu Chhedia Minor Aged About 8 Months, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Niranbai, Resident Of Village Kohkatta, O.P. Mohara, Thana And Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sohan Kumar Kurre Son Of Late Bhanu Kurre Aged About 32 Years Resident Of Village Katalvahi, Thana And Tahsil Dongargarh, Tahsil Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 5 - Rohit Kumar Son Of Videshi Ram Kurre Aged About 46 Years Resident Of Village Katalvahi, Thana And Tahsil Dongargarh, Tahsil Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 For Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal and Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocates For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Ms. Priyanshi Dubey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate For Respondents No. 4 & 5 : Mr. Ashwell Franklin, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (30.07.2026) 1. Vide order dated 25.04.2022, this Court directed to deposit 60% of the awarded amount before the concerned Tribunal by the appellant/Insurance company. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the said order has been complied with by the appellant/insurance company. 3. Heard on admission. 4. This appeal is admitted for hearing. 5. The matter is heard finally. 6. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance company challenging pay and recover of the amount of compensation, the impugned award dated 16.09.2021 passed in Claim Case No.9/2019, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.10,06,800/- as compensation under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 to the claimants No. 1 to 3, who are the wife, mother and son of the deceased Deenu Chhedia, who died in a road accident which took place on 29.11.2018. 3 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in passing the award against the appellant/Insurance company by holding that respondent No. 4 was not in possession of a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident that is breach of policy. It is further submitted that, therefore, the appellant cannot be held liable to satisfy the award and is liable to be exonerated from its liability.. Therefore, an order of “pay and recover” may be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the respective respondents support the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal and submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the appellant/Insurance Company to satisfy the award. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 10. In the case at hand, it is true that the learned Claims Tribunal recorded a finding regarding breach of the policy conditions on the ground that at the time of the accident, the driver, namely, Sohan Kurre, was not in possession of a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. However, while considering the said breach, the learned Tribunal has rightly directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the award amount at the first instance with liberty to recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. In view of the settled legal position laid down by 4 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sunita and Ors. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Ors.1 and Manuara Khatun and Others Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh and Others2, 4 the direction of “pay and recover” issued by the learned Claims Tribunal does not call for any interference. The Insurance Company has failed to make out any ground warranting interference with the impugned award. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 11. Records of the Tribunal along with a copy of this judgment be sent forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge AMIT PATEL 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1464 2. (2017) 4 SCC 796