Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.14 18:52:41 +0530 2025:CGHC:40638 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 879 of 2018 Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Itwari Bazar, Nayaganj Raigarh Chhattisgarh. versus ... Appellant 1 - Parthvi Bhoy W/o Late Govind Ram Bhoy Aged About 49 Years R/o Jobro Whaya, Hameerpur, Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2 - Radheshyam @ Golu S/o Rajendar Langad, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Hameerpur (Lalpara), Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). 3 - Tarachand Bhoy S/o Govind Ram, Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Jobro Whaya Hameerpur, Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate For Driver and owner : Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge 12.08.2025 Judgment on Board 1 Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 06.02.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case 2 No.39/2017 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimant. 2 Brief facts of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that, on 14.02.2016 at about 6:45 a.m., while travelling from Sitapur to Kansabel on the National Highway, non-applicant No.1 Radheshyam allegedly drove the Scorpio bearing registration No.CG-13-C-5389 (for short, ‘offending vehicle’) in a rash and negligent manner and, before reaching the culvert near Paprel Nala, village Bamlaya, lost control and collided with a tree. As a result, passenger Madhusudan sustained serious injuries and was taken to the hospital where he succumbed during treatment, while another passenger, Anup Rao Thackeray, died on the spot. 3 The claimant has filed claim petition before the learned Claims Tribunal pleading therein that on the date of accident, Madhusudan was aged 25 years, employed as a driver earning Rs.9,000/- per month. The claimant pleaded that due to his untimely death, she has been left destitute and claimed Rs.32,40,000/- as compensation along with interest and litigation costs. 4 Non-applicant No.1 filed his written statement while denying the fact that at the time of the accident, deceased Madhusudan himself was driving and held a valid licence, as such, he was not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 3 5 Non-applicant No.2 (Insurance Company) has filed its separate written statement, denied involvement of the insured vehicle, alleged breach of policy conditions as Radheshyam did not hold a valid and effective licence, and disputed the quantum of claim. 6 Non-applicant No.3/owner of the offending vehicle proceeded ex- parte before the learned Claims Tribunal. 7 On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, Claims Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.8,40,000/- to the claimants with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization. 8 Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that learned Claims Tribunal while deciding the Issue No.2 with regard to breach of policy conditions, has held that on the date of accident, driver of the offending vehicle had not possessed with valid and effective driving licence, but in the concluding paragraph, held the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the Insurance Company as the Insurance Company shall first pay the amount of compensation and then same shall be recovered from the non- applicant No.1 therein i.e. driver of the offending vehicle. 9 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for driver and owner submits that after appreciating the material available on record, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned award, which needs no interference. 4 10 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 11 While deciding Issue No. 2, the learned Claims Tribunal observed that although the Insurance Company admitted the offending vehicle was insured (proved through Exhibit D-2), the policy mandated that the driver must possess a valid and effective driving licence. The Administrative Officer (K.R. Suryavanshi) proved that notices (Exhibits D-3 & D-4) were sent to Radheshyam to produce his licence, which he acknowledged receiving, yet failed to produce any licence. The police seizure report (Exhibit A- 5) showed no licence was seized, and the final report (Exhibit A-6) recorded prosecution of Radheshyam under Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. These facts remained uncontroverted. The Claims Tribunal, therefore, concluded that there was a breach of policy conditions due to the absence of a valid and effective driving licence, thereby absolving the insurer from liability, but in concluding paragraph No.25 has held that the claimant had partially succeeded in proving their case against non-applicant No.1 and that breach of policy conditions was established. Applying the principle of “Pay and Recover,” the Claims Tribunal directed that the compensation amount be paid to the claimant by the Insurance Company, with liberty to recover the same from non- applicant No.1 Radheshyam alias Golu, who is driver of the offending vehicle. 5 12 The provisions relating to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act are benevolent in nature, enacted with the object of providing prompt and adequate compensation to victims of motor vehicle accidents or to the legal heirs of those who lose their lives in such accidents. The legislative intent is to ensure social welfare and to mitigate the hardship and financial distress caused by accidental injuries or death. Being a beneficial legislation, its provisions are required to be interpreted in a liberal manner so as to advance the cause of justice in favour of the claimants, rather than defeating their legitimate claims on technical grounds. The procedure before the Tribunal is less formal and more flexible than that of regular civil courts, thereby enabling expeditious adjudication and ensuring that the victims or their families receive timely relief. 13 It is an admitted fact that owner of the offending vehicle has also filed MAC bearing No.825/2018, which was dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 19.06.2025 stating that a compromise had been arrived between the owner and the claimants. 14 In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that it stands established that, on the date of the accident, non-applicant No.1 Radheshyam alias Golu was driving the offending vehicle without possessing a valid and effective driving licence, thereby committing a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The learned Claims Tribunal, therefore, rightly invoked the 6 principle of “Pay and Recover,” directing the insurer to satisfy the award in the first instance with liberty to recover the amount from non-applicant No.1. Considering the benevolent object of the Motor Vehicles Act, which mandates liberal interpretation in favour of accident victims to ensure prompt and adequate compensation, such a direction subserves the ends of justice while safeguarding the rights of the insurer. 15 It is further noted that, in terms of the interim order dated 12.07.2018, the Insurance Company had deposited 50% of the awarded amount by 31.08.2018, and execution of the remaining amount was stayed. In continuation of the said order, it is directed that the balance 50% of the awarded amount shall be paid by the driver of the offending vehicle, and the amount already disbursed to the claimant shall be recoverable by the insurer from non- applicant No.1 driver of the offending vehicle through appropriate legal proceedings. 16 Accordingly, the appeal stands partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. The record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be remitted forthwith. Yogesh Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge