1 CGHC010101132024 2026:CGHC:34832 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 619 of 2024 1 - The New India Assurance Company Limited, Through- Its Branch Manager, Branch- Office, Korba, Distt- Korba (C.G.). ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Champa Bai Wd/o- Late Gore Lal, Aged About 46 Years,, Sarthi By Caste And R/o - Vill- Paarla, Tah. - Podi Uproda, Distt.- Korba (C.G.). 2 - Anita D/o - Late Gore Lal, Aged About 23 Years, Sarthi By Caste And R/o - Vill- Paarla, Tah. - Podi Uproda, Distt.- Korba (C.G.). 3 - Nikesh, S/o - Late Gore Lal, Aged About 20 Years, Sarthi By Caste And R/o - Vill- Paarla, Tah. - Podi Uproda, Distt.- Korba (C.G.). 4 - Dinesh, S/o- Late Gore Lal, Aged About 18 Years Sarthi By Caste And R/o - Vill- Paarla, Tah. - Podi Uproda, Distt.- Korba (C.G.). 5 - Anandram, S/o- Amarasai, (Deleted as per Hon’ble Court order dated 07.08.2026). 6 - Hemant Baghel, S/o- Duhan Lal Baghel, Aged About 29 Years R/o- Puchhapara Katghora, Distt.- Korba (C.G.). (Driver) 7 - Ritraj, S/o - Salona Raj, Aged About 25 Years R/o - Vill.- Sarma, Tah- Podi Uproda, Distt- Korba (C.G.) ( Owner) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 to 4 : Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 : Mr. T.R. Patel, Advocate. Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2026.08.12 11:07:07 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (07.08.2026) 1. Heard on I.A.No.04/2026, for deleting the name of respondent No.5 from the cause title. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent No.5 – Anandram, who is father of the deceased and also one of claimant, died on 02.08.2023, which has been duly confirmed by other respondents also. He also submits that other legal representatives of the deceased (respondent No.5) are already on record, as such, the name of respondent No.5 may be deleted from the array of respondent. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has no objection to the application. 4. Upon due consideration and for the reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed. 5. Appellant was directed to carry out necessary amendment in the in the Court itself. Necessary amendment has been carried out. 6. Also heard on I.A.No.02/2024, an application for stayign the execution proceeding. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in compliance of order dated 27.11.2024, the appellant/Insurance Company has deposited 75% of the awarded amount on 16.12.2024 before the concerned Tribunal and it has duly complied with the Court’s order. Accordingly, interim order dated 27.11.2024 is made absolute. 3 8. In view of above, I.A.No.02/2024 stands disposed of. 9. Heard on admission. 10. This appeal is admitted for hearing. 11. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 12. 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 the impugned award dated 23.09.2023 passed in Motor Accident Claims Case No.84/2021, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.6,78,276/- as compensation under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 to the claimants No. 1 to 5, who are the wife, children and father of deceased Gorelal, who died in a road accident which took place on 02.12.2020, and directed the appellant/Insurance company to first pay the award amount and then to recover the same from respondent Nos. 6 and 7. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that that the learned Tribunal, having recorded a categorical finding that the driver of the offending motorcycle was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and that there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, erred in directing the Appellant/Insurance Company to first satisfy the award and thereafter recover the amount from the owner and driver. He further submits that once the breach of the policy conditions stood established, the 4 Appellant was liable to be completely exonerated from its liability to pay compensation, and the entire liability ought to have been fastened upon the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. Thus, the direction of "pay and recover" in the facts of the present case is contrary to law and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 14. 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. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 16. 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, Hemant Baghel, was not in possession of a valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle. However, while considering the said breach, the learned Tribunal has rightly found that the offending vehicle was insured with the Appellant/Insurance Company and 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 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sunita and Ors. vs. United India Insurance Co. 5 Ltd and Ors.1 and Manuara Khatun and Others Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh and Others2 and Amrit Paul Singh & Anr. Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited & Ors.3, 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 and is hereby dismissed. 17. 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 Pekde 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1464 2. (2017) 4 SCC 796 3 (2018) 7 SCC 558