1 2026:CGHC:19123 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1860 of 2019 1 - Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Dhamtari, M.B. Trade Near Centre Clock Chowk, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh....(In. A. No. 2), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Neera Bai Sahu W/o Temanlal Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village And Post - Kosmarra, P.S. - Bhakhara, Tahsil - Kurud, Distt. - Dhamatari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Tikendra Kumar S/o Temanlal Aged About 6 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Neera Bai W/o Temanlal. R/o Village And Post - Kosmarra, P.S. - Bhakhara, Tahsil - Kurud, Distt. - Dhamatari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ramhin Bai W/o Ganesh Ram Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village And Post - Kosmara, P.S. - Bhakhara, Tahsil - Kurud, Distt. - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh......(N.A. No 01), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2026.04.28 11:19:07 +0530 2 MAC No. 1814 of 2019 1 - Smt. Neera Bai Sahu W/o Teman Lal Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village And Post Kosmarra, P.S. Bhakhara, Tahsil Kurud, District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Tikendra Kumar S/o Teman Lal Sahu Aged About 6 Years Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Neera Bai Wife Of Teman Lal Sahu. R/o Village And Post Kosmarra, P.S. Bhakhara, Tahsil Kurud , District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh......(Claimants) ... Appellants versus 1 - Smt. Ramhin Bai W/o Ganesh Ram Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village And Post Kosmarra, P.S. Bhakhara, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Dhamtari, M.B. Trade Centre, Near Ghadi Chowk, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.....(Respondents), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Claimants : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Insurance Company : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate For Owner and Driver (Smt. Ramhin Bai) : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate 3 (SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 25.04.2026 1. Since common question of law and fact is involved in both the appeals and they have been filed against the impugned award dated 11/09/2018 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Link Court Kurud, District Dhamtari in Claim Case No. 135/2018, therefore, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. MAC/1860/2019 has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company on the ground that the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance policy, therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation whereas MAC/1814/2019 has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 3. Mr. H.P. Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company in MAC/1860/2019, would submit that the driver of the offending vehicle (e-rickshaw) namely Ramhin Bai though possessed a learner’s license, however, she was neither accompanied by an instructor sitting in the vehicle along with 4 her nor there was any ‘L’ sign painted or stuck either in the front or rear of the vehicle in accordance with the provision contained under Rule 3 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter, the Rules of 1989), as such, the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Others1 would not apply to the present case and thus, the appellant/Insurance Company would not be liable for payment of compensation to the claimants. 4. Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants in MAC/1814/2019, would submit that the appellants/injured claimants are mother and her six months old daughter who suffered multiple injuries in the accident and looking to the injuries suffered by them, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is inadequate, therefore, the amount of compensation may suitably be enhanced. 5. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for respondent No. 1/owner and driver of the offending vehicle, would submit that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 1 (2004) 3 SCC 297 5 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. MAC/1860/2019 :- 7. The appellant/Insurance Company has clearly taken a specific plea in paragraph 6 of their written statement that the offending vehicle was being plied by respondent No. 1 in breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as on the date of the accident, the driver of the vehicle i.e. respondent No. 1 namely Ramhim Bai was holding a learner’s license and neither she was accompanied by a skilled instructor sitting in the vehicle along with her nor there was an ‘L’ mark painted or affixed in the front of rear of the vehicle, as such, Insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation. 8. However, in support of their plea, the Insurance Company has examined three witnesses. First witness namely Suresh Yadu (N.A.W-1), who works as an Assistant Grade II in the RTO Office, Dhamtari and, who has only stated about the fitness of the vehicle. Second witness is Yuvraj Kumar Sahu (N.A.W.-2), who also works as an Assistant Grade II in RTO Office, Dhamtari, and has only stated that Ramhin Bai was holding learner’s license on the date of the accident. Third and last witness is Gaukaran Ram 6 Dhruw (N.A.W-3), who works at the office of the Insurance Company at Dhamtari and he has stated that Ramhin Bai possessed learner’s license on the date of the accident and if an accident occurs from a person holding a learner’s license, the Insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation. 9. However, the Supreme Court, in the matter of Swaran Singh (supra), has clearly held that if a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learner’s license, the insurance companies would be liable to satisfy the decree. 10. Though specific plea has been taken by the Insurance Company in paragraph 6 of their written statement that Ramhin Bai was not accompanied by an instructor at the time of the accident, but no evidence has been led by the Insurance Company to establish the said fact. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the Insurance Company has failed to prove the plea qua driver Ramhin Bai not being accompanied by an instructor. Even otherwise, in light of the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Swaran Singh (supra), the Insurance Company would be liable for payment of compensation to the claimants. Thus, I do not find any merit in this appeal. 7 MAC/1814/2019 :- 11. A careful perusal of the impugned award would show that the injured claimants are mother and her six months old daughter an due to the accident, the mother has suffered fracture on her left foot and the minor child has suffered fracture on her ribs and an injury on her head, however, the Claims Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 93,617/- to the claimants, which appears to be grossly inadequate in the considered opinion of this Court and as such, warrants enhancement. 12. Thus, this Court is computing the compensation as stated below :- Heads of Compensation Tribunal This Court Medical Bills Rs. 43,617/- 1. Rs. 61,000/- 2. Rs. 67,600/- Healthy Diet, Pain and Suffering and Assistance 1. Rs. 25,000/- 2. Rs. 25,000/- 1. Rs. 50,000/- 2. Rs. 50,000/- Transportation NIL Rs. 20,000/- Future Treatment NIL Rs. 20,000/- Loss of Amenities NIL Rs. 20,000/- Total Rs. 93,617/- RS. 2,88,600/- 13. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 93,617/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to 8 Rs. 2,88,600/-. Hence, the claimants held entitled for an additional compensation of Rs. 1,94,983/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 11/09/2018 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 8. Accordingly, MAC/1860/2019 is dismissed whereas MAC/1814/2019 is allowed to the extent indicated herein- above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet