The absence of a valid driving license at the time of the accident exonerates the insurer from liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, while the 'pay and recover' principle mandates that the insurer must initially satisfy the compensation amount.

JUDGEMENT :

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

Preferred by the appellant-claimants, the present Appeal is directed against judgment and award dated 11.06.2020 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in M.A. (C) No. 876 of 2013, whereby the High Court enhanced the compensation payable to the appellant-claimant and absolved respondent No. 3 – Insurance Company from the liability to pay the amount, fastening the same on respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – driver and the owner respectively.

2. The case and grievance of the appellant is that the High Court ought to have applied the doctrine of “pay and recover” requiring the Insurance Company to satisfy the amount of compensation to the claimant and subsequently allow the Insurance Company to recover the amount in accordance with law.

2.1 In support of the plea that principle of ‘pay and recover’ should have been applied, the appellant pressed into service the decisions of this Court in Shamanna and Another v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others , (2018) 9 SCC 650 and in Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others , (2019) 7 SCC 217.

3. The appellant happens to be the mother of one Nand Kumar who died in a vehicular accident that occurred on 13.10.2011. A truck bearing registration No. CG-04-J-1233 driven by respondent No. 1 met with an accident with a tractor-trolley, tractor bearing separate registration No.CG-04-DM-9357. The said Nand Kumar was a conductor in the truck who died succumbing to injuries suffered in the accident.

3.1 The 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, Chhattisgarh in Claim Case No.64 of 2012 instituted by the parents of the deceased awarded compensation of Rs.3 Lakhs by applying the relevant parameters for determination of compensation. The compensation amount was ordered to be deposited by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – driver and the owner and to be disbursed in accordance with the directions issued. It was found that respondent No.1–Driver was not holding a valid licence on 13.10.2011 which was the date of the accident.

3.2 In the appeal preferred by the appellant before the High Court, the amount of compensation was enhanced, assessing it under different heads, totalling to Rs.5,33,600/- instead of Rs.3 Lakhs awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim application till the realisation. While enhancing the compensation, the High Court fastened the liability to pay the amount on the respondent No. 1 – driver and respondent No. 2 – owner holding that respondent No. 3 – Insurance Company was entitled in law to avoid the liability.

3.3 The aforesaid conclusion reached by the High Court, concurring with what was held by the Accidents Claim Tribunal on the said issue, was arrived at on the basis that respondent No.1 Paras Satnami–driver’s driving licence No. CG.04/2002/0006140, issued from the Regional Transport Office, for driving the transport vehicle was not valid from 20.06.2010 to 02.11.2011 as the validity of the license had expired on 20.06.2010 and only renewed from 03.11.2011 to 02.11.2014. The accident took place on 13.10.2011.

3.4 In other words, on the date of the accident a valid licence was not held by respondent No. 2 – driver. Therefore, it was not legally permissible for him to drive the vehicle on the date of accident. The factum that there was no driving licence on 03.10.2011 was proved from the Insurance Document (Ex. D-1C) and the Driving Licence (Ex. D-2C). Thus, the driver of the offending vehicle was found not to have a valid license on the date of accident.

3.5 While endorsing to the view of the Tri