1 2026:CGHC:14302 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 534 of 2018 1 - National Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager National Insurance Company Limited 13, Minu Complex Kosabadi Korba, Tehsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Martiin Tirki S/o Late B. Tirki Aged About 24 Years R/o F/263, Alakhnanda Vihar, C.G. State Electricity Board Korba West, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Claimant), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Devnath Singh S/o Butan Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Narayanpur, Thana Pachrukhi, District Sival (Bihar), Present Address By The Side Of Electric Officer Tifra, Thana Civil Lines Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Vehicle Driver), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 3 - Naresh Kumar S/o A. Jain R/o Transport Nagar Korba, Tehsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Vehicle Owner), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ku. Monika Tirky D/o Late Shri B. Tirky Aged About 28 Years Present Address Through Jorem Tirky, House No. 254, Ward No. 5, Village Fundaldehri, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1, 3 & 4 : None though notice has been served. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 25/03/2026 1. The present is Insurance Company’s appeal assailing the award dated 30.11.2017 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District-Korba (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 128/2010, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 13,02,568/- with interest @ 7% per annum in favour of claimants/respondents No. 1 & 4 herein. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 11.06.2010 at about 10:00 A.M., the deceased, Levkadia Bai, was driving her scooty when a heavy vehicle (capsule) bearing registration No. C.G. 07/C-6341 came from behind and dashed into the said scooty, resulting in the death of Levkadia Bai due to the injuries sustained in the accident. 3 After her demise, her son, Martin Tirky, filed the claim application seeking compensation. It is submitted that the Tribunal has recorded an erroneous finding in paragraph 14 of the award by treating the pension amount as the income of the deceased and has thereby wrongly assessed and awarded compensation. Further, despite clear evidence on record that the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 2, Devnath Singh, on the basis of a fake driving licence, the Tribunal has erroneously fastened liability upon the appellant Insurance Company. In this regard, the statement of RTO witness Umesh Tripathi, along with documents marked as Exhibits D-2, D-2C, and D-3, clearly establish the absence of a valid driving licence. Moreover, the driver, Devnath Singh, remained ex parte before the Tribunal and did not file any written statement. It is further submitted that there was no valid driving licence to drive the said heavy vehicle, and therefore, the liability could not have been imposed upon the appellant Insurance Company. Additionally, considering that the accident involved a collision between a scooty and a heavy vehicle, the aspect of contributory negligence ought to have been properly adjudicated. It is also pertinent that the offending vehicle was being operated without a valid permit, which further vitiates the impugned award. As per the record, the deceased was a housewife with no independent source of income, yet the Tribunal has erred in assessing compensation. The application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was allowed by the Tribunal 4 on 24.07.2017. Lastly, it is submitted that an excessive rate of interest has been awarded, which also warrants reconsideration. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has illegally fastened liability upon the Insurance Company despite clear evidence on record demonstrating that the driver of the offending vehicle, namely Devnath Singh, did not possess a genuine and valid driving licence. It is contended that the licence purportedly held by the said driver had been renewed by the RTO, Bilaspur on the basis of Driving Licence No. 936/2002, which was shown to have been issued in his favour; however, the said licence was found to be fake. In support of this contention, the witness from RTO, Ranchi, namely Lallan Prasad Singh (NAW-1), was examined, who categorically deposed that Driving Licence No. 936/2002 was actually issued in the name of one Supchand Toppo and not in the name of Devnath Singh. This clearly establishes that the licence relied upon by the driver was forged and not genuine. It is further submitted that despite such cogent evidence, the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate and consider the testimonies of Lallan Prasad Singh, an official from RTO, Ranchi, as well as Umesh Tripathi, an official from RTO, Bilaspur, in their correct perspective. Consequently, the finding of the Tribunal fastening liability upon the appellant Insurance Company is contrary to the settled principles of law and, therefore, liable to be set aside. 5 4. None for respondents No. 1, 3 & 4 though notice has been served. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 6. The principal grounds of challenge raised by the appellant are that the learned Tribunal committed grave illegality in fastening liability upon the Insurance Company despite there being clear evidence on record that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a fake and forged driving licence. 7. From a perusal of the record and the evidence adduced, particularly the testimony of NAW-1, Umesh Tripathi, A.G.-III, RTO, Bilaspur, it is evident that the RTO, Bilaspur renewed the driving licence of Devnath Singh on the basis of an alleged original driving licence bearing No. 936/2002, purportedly issued by the RTO, Ranchi. However, the evidence of Lallan Prasad Singh, an अध✿कᔾर぀ of RTO, Ranchi, clearly reveals that the said driving licence bearing No. 936/2002 was actually issued in the name of Supchand Toppo and not in the name of Devnath Singh. In view of this categorical evidence, it becomes apparent that the driving licence relied upon by Devnath Singh was not genuine but a forged one. Despite this, the learned Tribunal committed a manifest error of law in fastening liability upon the Insurance Company, as the driving licence seized from the driver of the offending vehicle was not valid and was not issued in his name. Consequently, it is evident that the driver of the offending vehicle 6 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, and therefore, the impugned finding of the Tribunal is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 8. In view of the settled legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, when the driver is not holding a valid and effective driving licence and the owner fails to prove due diligence, the Insurance Company cannot be made directly liable to satisfy the award. Therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal fastening liability upon the appellant Insurance Company cannot be sustained in law. 9. The Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & Others, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 has categorically held that even if the driver’s licence is found invalid or fake, the insurer must first satisfy the award to protect the rights of the third- party victims, and thereafter recover the same from the insured. “104. It is, therefore, evident from the discussions made hereinbefore that the liability of the insurance company to satisfy the decree at the first instance and to recover the awarded amount from the owner or driver thereof has been holding the field for a long time. 110. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions is as follows: xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. 7 disqualification of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards the insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply “the rule of main purpose” and the concept of “fundamental breach” to allow defences available to the insurer under Section 149(2) of 8 the Act.” 10. However, considering that the claimants are third parties and in order to protect their interest, this Court is of the opinion that the principle of “pay and recover” deserves to be applied. The appellant Insurance Company can be directed to satisfy the award in the first instance with liberty to recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 11. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant Insurance Company is allowed in part. The finding of the learned Tribunal fastening direct liability upon the appellant/Insurance Company is hereby set aside and the same has been shifted to owner and driver of offending vehicle. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to pay the awarded amount to the claimants in the first instance, along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. After making such payment, the appellant/Insurance Company shall be entitled to recover the entire amount so paid from respondents No. 2 and 3 (driver and owner of the offending vehicle) by initiating appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. Except to the extent indicated above, the award dated 30.11.2017 passed by the learned Tribunal is affirmed. SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat