1 2026:CGHC:2520 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 417 of 2025 1 - Smt. Chandrika Bai W/o Late Bisesar Nishad Aged About 45 Years R/o Village And Post Arjuni Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 2 - Satish Kumar S/o Late Bisesar Nishad Aged About 17 Years Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Chandriak Bai, W/o Late Bisesar Nishad, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village And Post Arjuni, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Dr. Krishnarao S/o Jagannaikalu Aged About 40 Years R/o Behind Sangam Bar, Gayatri Mandir Street Zone-2, Bhilai, Police Station Chhawni, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh 2 - Divisional Manager Divisional Office, National Insurance Company Limited, Dakshin Gangotri Supela Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondents:- Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Order on Board 15.01.2026 1. The petitioner in the present review petition is seeking review of the order dated 17.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by this Hon’ble Court in MAC No. 1256/2018, whereby the Hon’ble Court was pleased to partly allow the appeal; however, no direction with regard to “pay and recover” was issued. Hence, the present review petition is being filed before this Hon’ble Court seeking appropriate review and necessary direction. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has made following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the review petition and review the order dated 17-09-2025 passed by this Hon'ble Court in MAC NO.1256/2018 to the extent of including direction for pay and recover, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioners, being the claimants and dependents of deceased Hemant Nishad, filed a claim petition which culminated in Claim Case No. 309/2015, wherein the learned Claims Tribunal, by award dated 07.03.2018, granted compensation of Rs.7,15,400/- for the death of the deceased in a motor accident but exonerated the insurance company on the ground that the driver of the offending motorcycle did not possess a valid driving licence. Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred 3 MAC No. 1256/2018 before this Hon’ble Court seeking enhancement of compensation as well as a direction for pay and recover, and this Hon’ble Court, by order dated 17.09.2025, was pleased to partly allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation to Rs.9,63,758/-, however, no direction for pay and recover was issued despite the fact that the insurance policy (Ex.D/3) was valid, the deceased was a pillion rider covered under the policy, and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Ananthi & Others vs. P. Venkatesan (Civil Appeal No. 1175/2025), thereby causing grave hardship to the petitioners and necessitating review of the order to include a direction for pay and recover in the interest of justice. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners, being the claimants and dependents of the deceased Hemant Nishad, had challenged the award dated 07.03.2018 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. 309/2015 by filing MAC No. 1256/2018, wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.7,15,400/- but erroneously exonerated the insurance company on the ground of absence of a valid driving licence. It is stated that this Hon’ble Court, by order dated 17.09.2025, was pleased to partly allow the appeal and enhanced the compensation to Rs.9,63,758/-, however, no direction for “pay and recover” was issued despite the fact that the insurance policy (Ex.D/3) was valid, the deceased was a pillion rider covered under the policy. The settled law, as reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme 4 Court in M. Ananthi & Others vs. P. Venketesan (Civil Appeal No. 1175/2025), mandates that in such cases the insurer should be directed to pay the compensation to the claimants and recover the same from the owner/driver, and in the absence of such a direction the petitioners would suffer grave hardship, thereby warranting review of the order dated 17.09.2025 in the interest of justice. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and upon a careful perusal of the record, it is evident that the limited issue involved in the present review petition relates to the direction regarding payment of compensation and the right of recovery by the Insurance Company. The Tribunal, while awarding compensation, had directed recovery from the owner/driver of the offending vehicle on the ground of breach of policy conditions. 7. In the decisions rendered in Akula Narayana vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another in Civil Appeal No. 013509 of 2025 and M. Ananthi and Others vs. P. Venkatesan and Another in Civil Appeal No. 1175 of 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that even in cases where there is a breach of insurance policy conditions, the Insurance Company cannot avoid its statutory liability towards third-party victims. It has been clearly laid down that the Insurance Company 5 is first liable to satisfy the award amount and thereafter is entitled to recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 8. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, the direction issued by the Tribunal fastening immediate liability upon the owner/driver instead of directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation in the first instance is not in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The interest of justice, therefore, requires modification of the impugned order to bring it in line with the binding precedents. 9. Accordingly, the review petition is allowed to the extent that the Insurance Company shall, in the first instance, satisfy the entire award amount in favour of the claimants, with liberty to recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle in accordance with law. The order passed by this Court on 17.09.2025 in MAC No.1256/2018 shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent, and this order shall be read along with the said earlier order. 10. With the above modification and clarification, the review petition stands allowed. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha