Chattisgarh High Court
The New India Insurance Company Limited vs Jagjeet Tiwari on 15 July, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:33150
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1168 of 2019
1 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager Station
Road, Parakh Bahwan, Durg Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg,
Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
Versus
1 - Jagjeet Tiwari S/o Kaliprasad Tiwari Aged About 38 Years L.I. G. -I Qurter No.
238 ,239 Near Cricket Ground, Jamul Bhilai, Police Sation Jamul, Tahsil Adh District
Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
2 - Gurujeet Singh S/o Dlaveer Singh Aged About 23 Years R/o Lig 80, Housing
Board Battis Acre, Bhlai, Police Station Jamul, Tahsil And District Durg
Chhattisgarh,., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
3 - Yogesh Mukel Prasad Dave S/o Late Mukul Prasad Aged About 58 Years R/o
Qtr. No. 183, Street No. 13, Shanti Nagar, Bhilai Police Station Supela, Tahsil And
District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
MAC No. 1168/2019
For Appellant : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr.
Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondents No. 1 : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate along with Mr.
Pravesh Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Ravi Ranjan Sinha, Advocate
S.B.: Hon’ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order On Board
15/07/2025
1. Appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the
SHUBHAM liability to pay the amount of compensation of Rs. 3,15,818/- fastened
DEY
Digitally
signed by
SHUBHAM
DEY
2
upon it by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Durg, District – Durg, Chhattisgarh (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide
award dated 23.02.2019 in Claim Case No. 122/2014.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 19.04.2013 at around 08:20 P.M.
when the applicant was returning to his home on his motorcycle
bearing registration no. CG 07 LK 2684 and reached near Sector 32,
Bhilai, one Car bearing registration no. CG 07 MA 8886 (henceforth
referred to the offending vehicle) driven by the Respondent No. 1 in a
rash and negligent manner, dashed the applicant and caused accident.
In the said accident, he suffered serious injuries over his person and
was taken to hospital for treatment where the applicant took treatment
as inpatient from 20.04.2013 to 29.04.2013 in Sector -9 Hospital, Bhilai
and thereafter, from 29.04.2013 to 05.05.2013 in Visharad Hospital,
Raipur. Subsequent to the said accident, an F.I.R. was registered
against the Respondent No. 2 bearing Crime No. 106/2013, P.S. Jamul,
District – Durg for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337
and 338 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The appellant/claimant filed a claim application before the learned
Claims Tribunal pleading therein that due to the said accident caused
by the offending vehicle, he suffered grievous injuries on his person
resulting in permanent disability. He was only 38 years of age on the
date of incident, was working on the post of Peon in the District &
Sessions Court, Durg and earning Rs. 13,611/- per month. Due to
disability suffered by him, he is facing difficulties in doing his day to day
activities and claimed compensation amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- from
the non-applicants.
3
4. There was no representation on behalf of the Non-Applicant No. 1 even
after service of notice. Hence, he was proceeded ex parte.
5. Non-Applicant No. 2 submitted reply denying the pleadings made in the
claim application and pleaded that the accident occurred due to own
negligence of the applicant/claimant. Further, the Non-Applicant No. 2
denied the fact that the applicant suffered permanent disability due to
the motor accidental injuries suffered by him. The Non-applicant No. 1
was driving the offending vehicle with valid and effective driving license
on the date of accident and thus, they have been falsely implicated in
the claim application. There was valid permit and fitness of the
offending vehicle. The offending vehicle was insured with the Non-
Applicant No. 3, therefore, if any compensation is awarded, then same
is payable by the Non-Applicant No. 3.
6. Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company filed its reply to the claim
application pleading that the claimant has not produced the disability
certificate issued by the competent Medical Board to substantiate the
plea with respect to permanent disability. On the date of accident, the
driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective
driving license and even, there was no valid permit or fitness certificate
in faovour of the offending vehicle. Hence, the offending vehicle was
plied on the road in violation of the essential conditions of the
insurance policy and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to
indemnify the insured.
7. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the facts and evidence
brought on record by respective parties held that the injuries suffered
by the applicant/claimant was not due to the accident caused by the
offending vehicle and the applicant did not suffer permanent disability.,
4
allowed the claim application in part, awarded a sum of Rs. 3,15,818/-
as compensation.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the
learned Claims Tribunal erred in fastening liability upon the
Appellant/Insurance Company to satisfy the award assuming that on
the date of accident, driver of the offending vehicle might have the
learner’s license in his name, overlooking the fact that copy of the
learner’s license is not produced before the learned Claims Tribunal.
Without there being copy of learner’s license, assumption of fact is
erroneous. On the date of accident i.e. 19.04.2013, the Non-Applicant
No. 1/Driver of the offending vehicle was not having any license. The
permanent license was issued only on 15.05.2013 i.e. after the date of
accident. She submits that as it is a case of no license, the appeal be
allowed. It be held that the offending vehicle was being driven in breach
of conditions of the policy and exonerate the insurance company from
its liability.
9. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 claimant would submit that
even if the arguments of the learned counsel for the
Appellant/Insurance Company is to be accepted that on the date of
accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessed with the
license, then the Appellant/Insurance Company may be directed to first
pay the compensation and thereafter, to recover the same from the
owner of the offending vehicle.
10. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 would submit that in
the evidence of the employee of the Regional Transport Office, it has
come that normally, learner’s license is issued prior to issuance of the
license. The period of learner’s license is of 06 months and if the
5
license is issued on 15.05.2013, then the learner’s license might have
been issued 06 months prior to 15.05.2013 whereas, the accident is
only of 01 month prior to the issuance of of license.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the
claim case.
12. Perusal of the Final Report submitted by the police after completion of
investigation would show that the investigating agency has submitted
the charge-sheet including the offence under Sections 3/181 and 5/180
of the Act, 1988. Perusal of the reply to the claim application as
submitted by the Respondent No. 3/Non-Applicant No. 2 (owner of the
offending vehicle) would show that in the pleadings, no specific stand
has been taken by the owner that on the date of accident, the driver of
the offending vehicle was accompanied by a person holding the regular
license and there was compliance of Rule 3 of the Central Motor
Vehicle Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1989).
13. According to the provisions, under Section 10 (2) of the Act, 1988, the
person possessing the learner’s license can drive the class of vehicle
of which, the license has been issued, however, subject to compliance
of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1989, but the provision under sub-section 2 of
Section 10 is subject to compliance of Rule 3 of Rules, 1989. Perusal
of the records would show that the Non-applicant No. 1 (driver of the
offending vehicle) was proceeded ex parte. The Non-applicant No. 2
appeared before the learned Claims Tribunal, however, he had not
submitted the learner’s license before the learned Claims Tribunal for
its consideration.
14. The Non-applicant No. 3/Insurance Company examined Smt. Hemlata
Dingre, Data Entry Operator as NAW – 1. In her evidence, she
6
admitted that the license (Ex. D/1) which she has brought, does not
bear the endorsement of learner’s license, further that, he has not
bought the record of the license issued in favour of Gurujeet Singh i.e.
the Non-applicant No. 1 and admitted that she has not brought record
of the issuance of the license issued in favour of the Non-applicant No.
1. Even if, it is to be considered that the Non-applicant No. 3 failed to
prove the fact that on the date of accident, the Non-applicant No. 1 was
not possessed with the learner’s license, but the fact remains that, the
person possessing the learner’s license can drive the motor
vehicle/motorcycle only after compliance of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1989.
Rule 3 of the Rules, 1989 is extracted below for ready reference:-
15. The Non-applicant No. 2/owner of the offending vehicle has not taken
any specific plea in his reply to claim application that at the time of
accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle
complying the provision under Rule 3 of the Rules, 1989. In the
aforementioned facts of the case, I am of the considered opinion that
the learned Claims Tribunal erred in recording a finding that at the time
of accident, the Non-applicant No. 1 was possessing the learner’s
license, only because the regular license has been issued and not
taking note of the provisions under Rule 3 of the Rules, 1989. For the
foregoing discussion, the appeal is allowed. The Appellant/Insurance
Company is exonerated from the liability to satisfy the amount of
compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal.
16. Now, it is the liability of the Non-applicant No. 1 & 2/Respondent No. 2
& 3 i.e. the driver and owner of the offending vehicle to satisfy the
award of Rs. 3,15,181/-. As this Court has exonerated the Insurance
Company on the ground that driver of the offending vehicle was not
7having the license on the date of accident, keeping in mind the decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamanna & Anr. Vs.
Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported in
(2018) 9 SCC 650, Amrit Pal Singh and Anr. Vs. Tata AIG General
Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558, the
Appellant/Insurance Company is directed to first satisfy the award
passed by the learned Claims Tribunal and thereafter, to recover the
same from the Non-applicants No. 1 & 2/Driver and owner of the
offending vehicle in accordance with law. This Court further directs that
for recovery of the amount, insurer will not be required to file separate
suit, but can recover the compensation so paid, as per directives of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Nanjappan & Ors. reported in (2004) 13 SCC 224 in same
proceedings.
17. In the result, appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified to
the extent as indicated above.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- Sd/–/-/——–/–/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Dey