1 CGHC010205532022 2026:CGHC:36378 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 734 of 2022 1 - Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Office 4th And 5th Floor, Dainik Bhaskar Complex, Rajbandha Maidan, Behind Shahid Smarak, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Parmeshwar Patel S/o Nankiram Patel Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Pisid, P.S. Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Rajkumar Sahu S/o Kedarnath Sahu Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Hadha Chowk- Kasdol, P.S. Kasdol, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, counsel appears on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondents : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (14.08.2026) 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the 2 appellant/Insurance company challenging the impugned award dated 30.03.2022 passed in Motor Accident Claims Case No.41/2021, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.9,04,269/- as compensation under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 to the claimant – Parmeshwar Patel, who sustained grievous injuries in a road accident which took place on 18.07.2020, and directed the appellant/Insurance company to first pay the award amount and then to recover the same from respondent No.2. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal, having recorded a categorical finding that the respondent No.2 - (owner-cum-driver of the offending motorcycle), was not holding any driving license, erred in directing the appellant- Insurance company to first satisfy the award and then recover the awarded amount. It is submitted that the present is a case of “no driving license at all”, constituting a clear breach of the policy conditions, and not a case of an invalid or ineffective driving license. Therefore, the direction to pay and recover is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 3. None for respondents. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. 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, 3 Rajkumar Sahu, was not in having 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 respondent No.2 - owner-cum-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. 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. 6. 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 Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2026.08.18 15:51:21 +0530