1 2026:CGHC:20544 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1121 of 2015 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Divisional Manager, Rama Trade Center, First Floor, Bus Stand, Near Rajeev Plaza, Bilaspur, Through Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Bramha Road Ambikapur, Zilla- Sarguja Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 3). ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Hemlata Singh W/o Late Kishore Kumar Singh, Aged About 29 Years Occupation- House Wife, R/o Indira Nagar Fundurdihari, Ambikapur, Thana And Tahsil- Ambikapur, Zilla- Sarguja Chhattisgarh (Claimant No.-1). 2 - Ansh Kumar Singh S/o Late Kishore Kumar Singh Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Respondent No.1/ Claimant No. 1/ Smt. Hemlata Singh R/o Indira Nagar Fundurdihari, Ambikapur, Thana And Tahsil- Ambikapur, Zilla- Sarguja Chhattisgarh (Claimant No.-2). 3 - Smt. Timdi Bai Singh W/o Puran Singh Aged About 51 Years Occupation- Service, R/o Indira Nagar Fundurdihari, Ambikapur, Thana And Tahsil- Ambikapur, Zilla- Sarguja Chhattisgarh (Claimant No.-3). 4 - Puran Singh S/o Faninder Singh Aged About 54 Years R/o Indira Nagar Fundurdihari, Ambikapur, Thana And Tahsil- Ambikapur, Zilla- Sarguja Chhattisgarh (Claimant No.-4). 5 - Kumari Kanishka Singh D/o Late Kishore Kumar Singh Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.05.04 10:35:30 +0530 2 Respondent No.1/ Claimant No. 1/ Smt. Hemlata Singh R/o Indira Nagar Fundurdihari, Ambikapur, Thana And Tahsil- Ambikapur, Zilla- Sarguja Chhattisgarh (Claimant No.-5). 6 - Dwarika Prasad Kushwaha S/o Ramkhelwan Aged About 52 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Aamakherwa, Manendragarh, Ward No. -2 Thana And Tahsil-Manendragarh, District Koria Chhattisgarh (Non-Appellant No.-1). 7 - Rakesh Kumar Gupta S/o Chandrika Prasad Gupta, Propriter-Chandrika And Sons, Agrasen Chowak, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Non Appellant No. 2). ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Adv. For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Adv. For Respondents No.1 to 5 : None. For Respondent No. 7 : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order on Board (01.05.2026) 1 This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the award dated 13.07.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sarguja (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 19/2014 (Smt. Hemlata Singh & Ors. vs. Dwarika Prasad & Ors.) (herein after referred to as 'award in question') whereby a compensation of Rs.32,30,206/- with interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded in favour of the claimants for cause irreparable loss to them. 2 Brief facts of the case are that on 04.10.2013, Kishore Singh (deceased), who was posted as a vehicle driver at the Commercial Tax Office, Ambikapur, was travelling towards Manendragarh in a Tata Sumo vehicle at about 7:30 pm, at 3 that time near the village of Pipariya, a truck bearing registration number CG-10-ZB-0602 (hereinafter referred to as the "offending vehicle") driven by its driver, Dwarika Prasad (Respondent No. 6), in a rash and negligent manner dashed the Tata Sumo vehicle. As a result of the collision caused by the offending vehicle, Kishore Singh sustained grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to the injuries on 07.10.2013, while undergoing medical treatment. The legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim for compensation against the driver of the offending vehicle (Dwarika Prasad Kushwaha), its registered owner (Rakesh Kumar Gupta), and the Appellant Insurance Company (in its capacity as the insurer). By the impugned award, the Tribunal held that the Appellant failed to establish any violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Consequently, an award amounting to 32,30,206/- ₹ inclusive of interest, was passed against the Appellant, which has been challenged by the Appellant/ Insurance Company in the present appeal. 3 The Tribunal has found that the insurance company has failed to substantiate the terms and conditions of the policy by formally submitting the insurance document itself; consequently, the insurance company cannot escape from its liability merely on the basis of documents having been submitted by the opposite party. It was incumbent upon the insurance company to prove as to whether or not a requirement that was not fulfilled as per the specific stipulation contained in the insurance policy regarding the driving licence. Therefore, finding no substantial evidence of any violation of the policy's terms and conditions, an award has been passed against the appellant/insurance company. 4 The learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company 4 submits that the offending vehicle was being used to transport gunpowder (a hazardous and dangerous substance), and in this regard, the driver/Dwarika Prasad, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident, therefore, the said act constitutes breach of Insurance Policy allowing the insurer to avoid liability. The Tribunal, having overlooked this material fact, passed an Award against the Appellant/Insurance Company. As such, the Award is neither valid nor proper in the eyes of the law. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, the registered owner of the offending vehicle, not only made a statement before the Court but also submitted the insurance policy in question, marked as Exhibit D-2-C, which contains a specific clause pertaining to the driving licence. Thus, despite the insured and registered owner of the vehicle having themselves submitted the relevant documents and thereby accepted the stipulated conditions, the Tribunal chose to disregard that specific condition. Consequently, the impugned order passed against the Appellant is unsustainable and cannot be upheld. Therefore, the Award passed against the Appellant ought to be set aside by allowing the appeal and the Appellant may be exonerated from its liability. 5 No one appeared on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 5 and 7 during final hearing of this case. 6 Learned counsel for the driver/respondent No. 6 of the offending vehicle taking the basis of testimony of the vehicle owner himself (Rakesh Kumar Gupta) and on the strength of documents i.e. Driving Licence (Exhibit D-5) and Training Manual (Exhibit D-6) contended that it has been established by the driver, Dwarika that at the time of the incident, the driver, Dwarika Prasad, possessed a valid and effective driving licence to operate the offending vehicle; 5 therefore, no condition of the insurance policy was violated. Under these circumstances, the award passed by the Tribunal against the insurance company is wholly justified. The insurance company is liable to pay compensation. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant/insurance company is liable to be dismissed. 7 Heard learned counsel appearing for parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 8 In the case in hand, the claimants, namely Smt. Hemlata Singh, M.R. Koshle, and Anil Kumar have been examined on behalf of the claimant party. On the other hand, Rakesh Kumar Gupta, the registered owner of the offending vehicle, has been examined and he has authenticated the vehicle's Registration Certificate (Ex.D-1), the Insurance Policy (Ex.D-2), the Fitness Certificate (Ex.)D-3, the Permit as (Ex.D-4), the Driving Licence of the driver, Dwarika, (Ex.D- 5), and his training booklet (Ex.D-6). 9 Witness, Mr. Sanchit Minj, Assistant Class-I, posted in the Office of the District Transport Officer, Koriya, Baikunthpur, District Koriya, was examined on behalf of the Appellant/Insurance Company. While presenting the register pertaining to driving licences, he submitted the entries recorded therein regarding the driving licence of the driver, Dwarika Prasad (Licence No. F/0325/KOR03), vide Ex. D-7C. 10 On perusal of the documents submitted on behalf of the claimants i.e. the Final Police Report (Ex.P-1), the FIR (Ex.P-2), and the Seizure Memo (Ex.P-3), it reveals that the offending vehicle has been described as a "gunpowder truck," that is, a truck used for transporting explosive material. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, the registered owner of the offending vehicle himself, has also stated in his deposition 6 before the Court that the said vehicle is an "Explosives Van." Furthermore, the nature of the vehicle is designated as "Explosive" in its Registration Certificate (Ex.D-1C); therefore, there remains no doubt that the offending vehicle was registered for the transportation of goods of a hazardous or dangerous nature. 11 Regarding the nature of the valid and effective driving licence required for a vehicle of the aforementioned type, a Division Bench of this Court, in its judgment dated 09.06.2020 passed in MAC No. 1255/2012 (The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Smt. Parvati Sharma and Others) has held that in accordance with Sections 3, 9 and 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and Rules 9 and 132 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the driving licence must bear an endorsement specifically authorizing the driver to operate a vehicle of a "dangerous and hazardous nature" at the time of the alleged accident. Accordingly, Paragraphs 12 to 16 and 19 in this regard are reproduced herein under:- “12. Section 3 of the Act of 1988 deals with necessity for driving license, which reads as under:- “3.Necessity for driving licence.—(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than 1[a motor cab or motor cycle] hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75] unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do.—(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than 1[a motor cab or motor cycle] hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75] unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. 7 (2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.” 13. Section 9 of the Act of 1988 deals with grant of license. Section 10 prescribes the form and contents of license to drive. Sub-section (2) of the Act of 1988 envisages as under:- “(2) A learner's license or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely:- (a) motorcycle without gear; (b) motorcycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; (e) transport vehicle; (i) road-roller; (j) motor vehicle of a specified description.” 14. Section 14 of the Act of 1988 is with regard to the currency of licenses to drive motor vehicles. Sub-section (2) prescribes different periods of validity with respect to different class of vehicles. Sub-section (2) (a) is relevant for disposal of present case, therefore, the same is reproduced below for ready reference:- "14.Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles:- (1) xxxxxx. (2) A driving licence issued or renewed under this Act shall,- (a) In the case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle, be effective for a period of three years: Provided that in the case of licence to drive a transport vehicle, carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature, be effective for a period of one year and renewal thereof shall be subject to the condition that the driver undergoes one day refresher course of the prescribed syllabus." 15. Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (for short 'the Rules of 1989') provides as follows:- “9.Educational qualifications for drivers of goods carriages carrying dangerous or hazardous goods: (1) One year from the date of commencement of Central Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Rules, 1993, any person 8 driving a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life shall, in addition to being the holder of a driving licence to drive a transport vehicle, also has the ability to read and write at least one Indian language out of those specified in the VII Schedule of the Constitution and English and also possess a certificate of having successful passed a course consisting of following syllabus and periodicity connected with the transport of such goods:……..” 16. From reading of the above quoted provisions of the Act of 1988 and the Rules of 1989, it is clear that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving license, which shall be issued by competent authority specifically entitling him to do so; a license to drive a transport vehicle shall be effective for a period of three years, whereas, license to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature shall be effective for a period of one year; a person driving transport vehicle, carrying goods of dangerous & hazardous nature, is required to have an endorsement on his license for the same and the licence can be effective for a period of one year only and that such driver should have the ability to read and write at least one language specified in 7th Schedule of the Constitution and English and also possess a certificate, having successfully passed the course, consisting of syllabus as described under the rules. Likewise, Rule 9 of the Rules of 1989 talks about the required qualification with driver of transport vehicle for becoming entitle to get the license endorsed authorising him to drive heavy goods vehicle carrying dangerous and hazardous goods. Rule 132 of the Rules of 1989 deals with responsibility of the transporter or owner of goods carriage and sub-section (5) cast a duty upon the owner to ensure that the driver of the goods carriage carrying dangerous or hazardous goods holds a driving license as per provisions of rule 9 of the Rules of 1989. 19. Appellant Insurance Company had also filed the extract of driving license of respondent No.6 as Ex.D-3 which indicates that respondent No.6 had license to drive light motor vehicle (non-transport car) and there is an endorsement authorizing 9 him to drive transport vehicle M/HMV rigid chassis goods w.e.f. 06.3.1998. Validity for non-transport vehicles was upto 23.1.2017, whereas for transport vehicle was upto 25.2.2013. Thus, it is clear that the driver of offending vehicle was holding a license which was valid for light motor vehicles (non- transport) & transport vehicle (M/HMV regid chassis goods, but there was no special endorsement on the driving license of respondent No.6 permitting him to drive a vehicle loaded with dangerous & hazardous nature of goods, as provided under Rule 9 (3) of the Rules of 1989. Since driving license of non- applicant No.3/respondent No.6 herein does not bear special endorsement permitting him to drive a goods carriage loaded with dangerous & hazardous substance and the insurance policy itself puts a specific restriction that no claim is admissible if driving license is found fake or is not valid or not in the knowledge of insured, we are of the view that respondent No.6 herein breached essential conditions of insurance policy as respondent No.6 was not duly authorized to drive offending vehicle at the time of accident, which comes within the category of a goods carriage for carrying dangerous or hazardous substance. This being the position, the Claims Tribunal gravely erred in fastening liability for payment of compensation upon the insurance company. Said finding of the Claims Tribunal is not sustainable and is hereby set aside. Appellant Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability to satisfy the impugned award and instead, respondent Nos.5 & 6, owner & driver of offending vehicle, are jointly & severally held liable to pay compensation to the claimants/respondents No.1 to 5.” 12 Applying the aforesaid analogy to facts of the present case, it becomes evident that the Appellant/Insurance Company has explicitly taken a plea in paragraphs 17 and 27 of its written statement that the driver (Dwarika Prasad) of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to operate the vehicle; thereby violated the 10 terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In this regard, on behalf of the Insurance Company, Mr. Sanchit Minj, Assistant Class-I from the Office of the District Transport Officer, Koriya, Baikunthpur, was also summoned to appear, accompanied by the Driving Licence Register. 13 Since the vehicle owner, Rakesh Kumar Gupta, himself had already submitted the insurance policy (Ex.D-2) and duly authenticated it, it was no longer legally necessary for the insurer to submit the same policy once again. Furthermore, the submission of the document by the registered owner makes it evident that between the two parties, this specific policy exhibited vide Ex.D-2C was the operative policy, the condition regarding the 'Driver Clause' of which reads as follows:- Driver’s Clause:- “Any person including insured; Provided that a person driving holds an effective driving license at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license. Provided also that the person holding an effective Lerner’s.” 14 Thus, it is evident that a primary condition of the insurance policy (Ex.D-2C) was that the driver must possess a valid and effective driving licence. It has also been clearly established as a fact that the offending vehicle, being a vehicle transporting gunpowder, falls under the category of vehicles transporting hazardous and dangerous goods. Furthermore, in accordance with the proviso to Section 14 of the Act, an endorsement on the driving licence is mandatory for the transportation of goods of such a nature and an endorsement which, before the amendment in the year 2019, was valid for a period of one year, and after the amendment, is valid for a period of three years. 15 In this case, driver, Dwarika Prasad, has not been 11 examined. The vehicle owner, Rakesh Kumar Gupta, has indeed stated that Dwarika Prasad's driving licence (Ex.D- 5) bore an endorsement for a vehicle of a "dangerous and hazardous nature" valid for one year, from 10.06.1999 to 09.06.2000. However, he has denied the fact that no such endorsement existed for the accident that occurred on 04.10.2013. 16 On the other hand, Sanchit Minj, Assistant Class-I posted at Office of the District Transport Officer, Korea (Baikunthpur), who was summoned on behalf of the appellant/insurance company submitted the licence register (Ex.D-7) maintained in the office and deposed that regarding the driving licence of the driver Dwarika Prasad, no endorsement was issued by their office for a vehicle of a "dangerous and hazardous nature" as of the date of the accident, i.e. 04.10.2013. 17 The Claims Tribunal also found that the driving licence of the driver, Dwarika Prasad (Ex.D-5) valid for the date of the accident, 04.10.2013 contained no endorsement authorizing the driving of a vehicle of a "dangerous and hazardous nature." However, the Trial Court did not deem this to constitute a violation of the policy conditions, as the insurance company failed to substantiate the terms and conditions by submitting the actual insurance policy in this regard. 18 In this case, the vehicle owner, Rakesh Kumar Gupta, had not disputed the claim made by the insurance company regarding the Driver Clause mentioned in the insurance policy (Ex.D-2C), issued in his name by the appellant/insurer. 19 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance company limited v. Premlata Shukla and 12 others, reported in (2007) 13 SCC 476, held that a Party objecting to the admissibility of a document must raise its objection at the appropriate time-If the objection is not raised and the document is allowed to be marked, one cannot be permitted to turn round and raise a contention that the contents of the document had not been proved and, thus, should not be relied upon, para 13 is reproduced below for ready reference:- “13. However, the factum of an accident could also be proved from the first information report. It is also to be noted that once a part of the contents of the document is admitted in evidence, the party bringing the same on record cannot be permitted to turn round and contend that the other contents contained in the rest part thereof had not been proved. Both the parties have relied thereupon. It was marked as an exhibit as both the parties intended to rely upon them. 20 Under these circumstances, the Tribunal's conclusion that the specific facts regarding the insurance terms agreed upon between the two parties concerning the driver's licence have not been substantiated is not found appropriate because the policy, duly admitted by the registered owner, explicitly contains a 'Driver Clause.' According to this clause, the driver must possess a valid and effective driving licence; furthermore, based on the aforesaid analysis, it has been established that the offending vehicle falls under the category of a "dangerous and hazardous" vehicle specifically, one utilized for the transportation of explosives and that, as of the date of the accident, the licence held by the driver, Dwarika Prasad, did not have the requisite endorsement for operating such a vehicle. Consequently, a breach of the insurance terms is conclusively proved. In light of these facts, the Insurance Company is not found liable for the payment of 13 compensation. 21 Considering the ratio laid down in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh and Another v. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others, reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558 of Hon'ble Supreme Court as also considering beneficial object of the Act of 1988 as well, this Court is of the view that though appellant/Insurance Company has no liability, in law, to pay amount of compensation, it will be in larger interest of justice to direct appellant to first pay the entire amount of compensation to claimants/respondents No.1 to 5 herein and then to recover it from insured i.e. respondent No.7-owner and driver/respondent No. 6 of offending vehicle, by filing an execution application before the Claims Tribunal in very same proceedings. 22 In the result, the appeal preferred by appellant/Insurance Company is allowed and insurance company is exonerated from its liability to indemnify the insured. Respondent No.6 & 7 are held jointly & severally liable to pay the compensation amount as awarded by the claims Tribunal. However, appellant/Insurance Company will first deposit the entire amount of compensation and then recover the amount of compensation so deposited from respondents No.6 & 7-driver & owner of offending vehicle, jointly and severally. 23 The records of the Tribunal, along with a copy of this order be sent forthwith to the concerned tribunal for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H. L. Sahu