1 CGHC010085042023 2026:CGHC:37241 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 416 of 2023 Virendra Kumar S/o Late Jeevrakhanlal Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Bhulandabari, Police Station And Tahsil Gurur, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Rahul Kumar S/o Late Ishwarlal Dehari Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Amabeda, Police Station Amabeda, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 2 - Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Shop No. 516, 5th Floor, National Corporate Park, Commercial Complex, G.E. Road Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Priyanka Bajpai, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No.2 : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (19.08.2026) 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking an order of pay and recover, challenging the impugned award dated 03.1.2023, passed in Claim Case No.145/2021, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.82,172/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant in a road accident which took place on 31.10.2020. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal has found that there was breach of the insurance policy, even though an order of "pay and recover" has not been passed. The Tribunal has also found that at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was insured. Therefore, an order of "pay and recover" may be passed. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurance company would submits that the learned Claims Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, passed the award which calls for no interference. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. The only contention of learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the Claims Tribunal has not passed an order of pay and recover. On perusal of record it seems that the Claims Tribunal found a breach of the policy conditions inasmuch as, at the time of the accident, the driver Rahul Kumar/Respondent No.1 did not possess a valid and 3 effective driving licence. However, the Tribunal did not pass an order for “pay and recover” as prayed for by the appellant/claimant before this Court. 6. In view of the above, and applying the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manuara Khatun and Others Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh and Others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 796, I direct Respondent No.2/Insurance Company to first pay the amount of compensation and thereafter recover the same from the owner and/or driver by filing an execution petition before the concerned Claims Tribunal. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. 8. 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 -Shubham