1 2026:CGHC:11585 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2006 of 2019 1. Smt. Laxmi Thakur W/o Late Jai Singh Thakur Aged About 46 Years By Caste - Kshatriya, R/o Rajapara Kanker, Police Station And Tahsil Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 2. Omprakash Thakur S/o Late Jai Singh Thakur Aged About 26 Years By Caste - Kshatriya, R/o Rajapara Kanker, Police Station And Tahsil Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 3. Lokeshwar Singh Thakur S/o Late Jai Singh Thakur Aged About 18 Years By Caste - Kshatriya, R/o Rajapara Kanker, Police Station And Tahsil Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1. Manish Singh S/o Brij Kishore Singh Aged About 22 Years R/o 02/398, Sarvoday Nagar Rajdhani Road, Shuklaganj Unnav, Police Station Gangaghat, District Unnav Uttar Pradesh. (Driver), District : Unnao, Uttar Pradesh 2. Rahul Tarak S/o O.P. Tarak, R/o L.I.C. Colony, Mova Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch Office M.B. Trade Centre, Second Floor, Near Gandhi Chowk, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 2074 of 2019  Rahul Tarak S/o O.P. Tarak Aged About 47 Years R/o L.I.C. Colony, Mowa, Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Caste Brahman, Address Village Kapsi, Police Station And Tahsil Doundilohara , District Balod Chhattisgarh..(Non Aaplicnat No 2) (Registered Owner Of Vehicle Motor Cycle Bearing Registration No Cg-04-Ct-4652), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) Versus 1. Smt. Lakshmi Thakur W/o Late Jaisingh Thakur Aged About 46 Years Caste Kshatri , R/o Rajapara, Kanker, Police Station And Tahsil - Kanker , SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.03.17 14:41:36 +0530 2 District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 2. Omprakash Thakur S/o Late Jaisingh Thakur Aged About 26 Years Caste Kshatri , R/o Rajapara, Kanker, Police Station And Tahsil - Kanker , District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 3. Lokeshwar Singh Thakur S/o Late Jaisingh Thakur Aged About 18 Years Caste Kshatri , R/o Rajapara, Kanker, Police Station And Tahsil - Kanker , District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 4. Manish Singh S/o Brijkishor Singh Aged About 22 Years R/o - 02/398, Sarvoday Nagar , Rajdhani Marg, Shuklaganj, Unnav, Police Station Gangaghat , District Unnav Uttarpradesh....(Non Applicant No. 01) (Driver Of Vehicle Motor Cycle Bearing Registration No Cg-04-Ct-4652), District : Unnao, Uttar Pradesh 5. The Orinental Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager , Branch Office - M.B. Trade Centre , Second Floor , Near Gandhi Chowk , Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh...(Non Applicant No 03) ( Insurer Of Vehicle Motor Cycle Bearing Registration No. Cg-04-Ct-4652), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 2006 of 2019 For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respective Respondents : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate along with Ms. Prerna Agrawal, Advocate MAC No. 2074 of 2019 For Appellant/Owner : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Respective Respondents : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate along with Ms. Prerna Agrawal, Advocate : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11.03 .2026 1. In these two appeals, the judgment and award passed by the learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanker District North Bastar Knaker passed in Claim Case No. 59/2016 dated 20.08.2019 has been challenged. 2. MAC No. 2006 of 2019 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, whereas, MAC No. 2074 of 2019 has been filed by the owner of the vehicle challenging liability part. 3 3. The facts in brief are that on 17.05.2016 while deceased Ku. Pooja Thakur was going towards Govindpur on a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 04 CT 4652 as a pillion rider, said bike dashed with the State Bank signboard. In said accident, Ku. Pooja Thakur sustained injuries and during course of treatment succumbed to death. Mother and two siblings of deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, wherein they pleaded that age of the deceased at the time of accident was 23 years; she was bachelor and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month as she was working as guest lecturer in Government Bhanupratap Deo College, Kanker. The driver of the vehicle filed reply to the claim petition and pleaded that he had valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. The owner of the vehicle filed separate reply and specifically pleaded that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. 4. The Insurance Company took a plea that the offending vehicle was being driven in breach of conditions of Insurance policy. The learned Tribunal framed issued, parties led evidence, and thereafter, award was passed. The learned Tribunal granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,94,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum and fastened liability with the owner of the offending bike. 5. Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate would submit that the learned Tribunal failed to grant compensation for future prospects and also failed to grant compensation for loss of consortium to the claimant No. 1 i.e. mother of the deceased. He would pray for enhancement of compensation accordingly. Mr. Dhurandhar would submit that the learned Tribunal should have directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the award and recover it from owner of the vehicle as the driving licence of driver of the offending vehicle 4 was not found valid. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rama Bai vs. Amit Minerals and Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2067 and New India Assurance Co., Shimla vs. Kamla and Ors. reported in (2001) 4 SCC 342. 6. Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate appearing for owner of the offending vehicle would submit that Manish Singh was a driver, who was engaged by the owner of the motorbike after due verification of his driving licence. He would submit that the driving licence of Manish Singh was examined by the appellant/owner and it was found valid and effective, and therefore, he was employed. It is argued by Mr. Pandya that the Insurance Company failed to establish the fact that on the date of accident, the driver Manish Singh did not have valid and effective driving licence. He would submit that burden was on the Insurance Company to establish this fact, and thus, the learned Tribunal committed error of law while fastening liability with the owner of the vehicle. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed in MAC No. 1192/2012 in the matter of Mohd. Sajid Meman vs. Smt. Savita Bai and Ors. Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate would submit that original driving licence of Manish Singh has been placed on record as Ex. D/5 bearing registration No. UP 35/ 2013/ 0090749. He would contend that the Insurance Company failed to prove the fact that the said driving licence was forged one. He would further contend that authenticity of driving licence Ex. D-1C and D-3 were not verified by NAW-3/ Pawan Kumar Tripathi. 7. Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate appearing for Insurance Company would submit that Pawan Kumar Tripathi, Assistant Divisional Transport Officer, Unnav, categorically deposed that the licence number UP35 2008 0090749 was never issued in favour of Manish Singh. He would submit that the 5 Insurance Company discharged its liability, and therefore, the learned Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company and fastened liability with the owner of the vehicle. 8. Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate would support the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 10. Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate appearing for the claimants has not disputed the income part assessed by the learned Tribunal. Perusal of the award would show that the learned Tribunal failed to grant compensation for future prospect. The age of the deceased was 23 years, thus, the claimants would be entitled to receive 40% additional amount on the established income under this head. The learned Tribunal further failed to grant compensation for grant of consortium to claimant No. 1/mother. As the deceased met with an accident in the year 2016, the claimant No. 1/mother of the deceased is held entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 48,000/- for loss of consortium. Thus, the compensation requires reconsideration and same is being revisited herein-below :- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 8000/- x 12 = Rs. 96,000/- Rs. 8000/- x 12 = Rs. 96,000/- 2. Future Prospect NIL (40%) = Rs. 38,400/- 3. Deduction (-)1/2 Rs. 48,000/- Rs. 48,000/- (-) 1/2 Rs. 67,200/- Rs. 67,200/- 4. Multiplier (x) 18 = 8,64,000/- (x) 18 = Rs. 12,09,600/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 6 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 7. Loss of consortium (for appellant No. 1) NIL Rs. 48,000/- 8. Loss of consortium(for appellant No. 2) NIL NIL 9. Loss of consortium(for appellant No. 3) NIL NIL TOTAL Rs. 8,94,000/- Rs. 12,87,600/- 11. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 8,94,000/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 12,87,600/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 8,94,000/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 3,93,600/- with interest at the rate of 7%. 12. The owner of the offending vehicle examined himself as NAW/2. On affidavit this witness stated that the driving licence of Manish Singh was examined by him and after due satisfaction motorcycle was handed over. In cross-examination, this witness stated that he does not recollect licence number of Manish Singh and he is not aware of the fact that the said driving licence has been found forged. It is also admitted that he is not award of the fact that which authority issued the said driving licence. 13. Mr. Shivendu Pandya has placed reliance on the judgment passed in MAC No. 1192/2012 in the matter of Mohd. Sajid Meman vs. Smt. Savita Bai and Ors.. It was a case where owner of the vehicle entered into witness box and stated that he knew driver since long and his driving licence was checked and was found valid up to particular date. It was also stated that 7 the driving licence was duly verified by RTO as the driver was taken to RTO office along with the owner of the vehicle. In the present case, no such exercise was done by the owner of the offending vehicle. Thus, the facts are different. 14. In the present case, the Insurance Company examined Assistant Divisional Transport Officer, Unnao, namely, Pawan Kumar Tripathi (NAW/3) on commission, who stated that driving licence No. 90749/ UNO 2008 (Ex. D1- C) was issued in favour of Shridhar S/o Shri Krishan, which was valid from 21.01.2008 to 31.12.2022. Thus, it is apparent that the driving licence Ex. D-1C was never issued to Manish Singh/driver of the offending vehicle. With regard to driving licence Ex. D/3 bearing No. UP 35/ 2013/ 0090749, it is stated by NAW/3 that said driving licence was never issued to Manish Singh. Ex. D-5C and its validity was examined by NAW-3 comparing with the original record. In cross-examination, this witness remained firm. 15. The learned Tribunal considered the evidence of NAW-3 at length and arrived at conclusion that on the date of accident driver of the offending motorbike did not have valid and effective driving licence, and therefore, fastened liability with the owner of the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle failed to adduce evidence to prove contrary. 16. The documents and evidence discussed above would make it clear that the owner of the offending vehicle failed to establish that the rider of the offending bike had valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident; therefore, in my opinion, the learned Tribunal rightly fastened liability with the owner of the vehicle. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the owner is hereby dismissed. 17. Admittedly, it is a case of fake licence. The Pawan Kumar Tripathi (NAW/3) has categorically stated that the driving licence Ex. D-5(UP 35/ 8 2013/ 0090749) was never issued from Regional Transport Office, Unnao, but at the same time, the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kamla (supra) while dealing with the issued with regard to insurers liability in case of fake driving licence, held that in such a case, the Insurance Company should indemnify the award first and recover it from owner of the vehicle, para 12, 25 and 26 are reproduced herein-below :- 12. As a point of law we have no manner of doubt that a fake licence cannot get its forgery outfit stripped off merely on account of some officer renewing the same with or without knowing it to be forged. Section 15 of the Act only empowers any licensing authority to renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry. No licensing authority has the power to renew a fake licence and, therefore, a renewal if at all made cannot transform a fake licence as genuine. Any counterfeit document showing that it contains a purported order of a statutory authority would ever remain counterfeit albeit the fact that other persons including some statutory authorities would have acted on the document unwittingly on the assumption that it is genuine. 25. The position can be summed up thus: The insurer and insured are bound by the conditions enumerated in the policy and the insurer is not liable to the insured if there is violation of any policy condition. But the insurer who is made statutorily liable to pay compensation to third parties on account of the certificate of insurance issued shall be entitled to recover from the insured the amount paid to the third parties, if there was any breach of policy conditions on account of the vehicle being driven without a valid driving licence. Learned counsel for the insured contended that it is enough if he establishes that he made all due enquiries and believed bona fide that the driver employed by him had a valid driving licence, in which case there was no breach of the policy condition. As we have not decided on that contention 9 it is open to the insured to raise it before the Claims Tribunal. In the present case, if the Insurance Company succeeds in establishing that there was breach of the policy condition, the Claims Tribunal shall direct the insured to pay that amount to the insurer. In default the insurer shall be allowed to recover that amount (which the insurer is directed to pay to the claimants - third parties) from the insured person. 26. We may point out that as per the order passed by this Court on 6.3.2000, the appellant Insurance Company was directed to pay the award amount to the claimants. We are told that the amount was paid by the appellant to the claimants. Now the Claims Tribunal has to decide the next question whether the insurance company is entitled to recover that amount from the owner of the vehicle on account of the vehicle being driven by a person who had no valid licence to drive the vehicle. For that purpose we remit the case to the Claims Tribunal. An opportunity shall be afforded to the parties concerned for adducing evidence in that regard. We make it clear that the claimants shall not be bothered during the remaining part of the proceedings. 19. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rama Bai (supra) while dealing with almost similar issue held in para 5, 6, 6.1 as under :- 5. The submission on part of the appellant that the High Court ought to have applied the “pay and recover” principle rests on the decision of this Court in Shamanna1 (supra) and Parminder Singh2 (supra). In Shamanna1 (supra) this Court dealt with the claim of compensation by third party victim of the motor accident. In para 5 of the judgment, this Court referred to its own earlier decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Others3 to reiterate that the insurer has to pay the compensation amount payable to the third party and the insurance company may recover the same thereafter from the insured. 6. In the present case as stated above, on the date of accident, the driver had no valid license and the 1[(2018) 9 SCC 650] 2[(2019) 7 SCC 217] 3[(2004) 3 SCC 297] 10 licence was not renewed. The insurance company was entitled to take a valid defence in that regard under Section 149 (2)(a)(ii) as the driver of the offending vehicle was not duly licensed, to avoid its liability to pay the compensation. The conditions in law are satisfied to absolve the insurance company from the payment of compensation. 6.1 The High Court in the impugned judgment relied upon the decision in Ram Babu Tiwari4 to find that as per the specific provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, if the driver does not possess a valid and effective driving licence, it results in a breach of conditions of the insurance policy, exonerating the insurer from its liability. But while affirming the order of the High Court, absolving the liability for breach of conditions in the policy, this Court refused to interfere with orders of ‘pay and recover’ as directed by the High Court. 20. The fall out of above-discussion is that the Insurance Company shall indemnify the award first and would be at liberty to recover it from owner of the vehicle. The Insurance Company shall make payment of compensation along with enhanced amount of compensation to the claimants within a period of 60 days with interest. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 21. Any amount out of award deposited by the owner of the vehicle with the concerned Claims Tribunal shall be adjusted. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant 4[(2008) 8 SCC 165]