2025:CGHC:58238 ASHOK SAHU NAFR Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Date:

2025.12.02

17:42:06 +0530 MAC No. 17 of 2023 Smt. Fekan Bai Banjare, W/o. Late Bise Lal Banjare, Aged About 60 Years, R/o. Village Semariya, P.S. Nandini Nagar, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant)

... Appellant versus

1 - Hemant Sahu, S/o. Bise Lal Sahu, Aged About 35 Years, Village Kumhari, Ward No. 4, Mahamaya Para, P.S. Kumhari, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle)

2 - Bise Lal Sahu, S/o. Late Fulram Sahu, Aged About 50 Years, Village - Kumhari, Ward No. 4, Mahamaya Para, P.S. Kumhari, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle) 3 - Branch Manager, Chola Mandalam, M.S General Insurance Company Limited, R/o. Infront Of LIC Building, Smiran Tower, 2nd Floor Pandari, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company Of Vehicle)

... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate No.1 & 2 For Respondent : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate No.3 (Single Bench)

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board

01.12.2025

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant/claimant against the impugned award dated 14.12.2022 passed by learned Sixth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg in MACT Case No.289/2021 seeking direction to the insurance company to pay the amount of compensation and thereafter recover the same from the driver & owner i.e. respondents No.1 & 2.

2. Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that since the Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding in para 25 of the impugned award that the vehicle did not have valid fitness certificate to ply, at the time of accident, therefore, the principle of “pay & recover” would be applicable in this case, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh v. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. ¹

1 (2018) 7 SCC 558

3. Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, learned counsel for the Driver &

Owner (Respondent No.1 & 2) and Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, learned counsel for the Insurance Company (Respondent No.3) would support the impugned award and submit that the appeal of the appellant/claimant is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the insurance company/ respondent No.3 would rely upon the decision of Kerala High Court in the matter of Ramankutty & Another v. Pareed Pillai &

Another²

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records minutely.

5. Learned Claims Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding in para 25 of the impugned award that the offending vehicle did not have valid fitness certificate at the time of accident and proceeded to exonerate the insurance company from its liability. In this regard, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh (supra) may be noticed herein, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly recorded a finding that if the offending vehicle is being plied in violation of terms and conditions of the

2 2018 SCC OnLine Ker 3542

insurance policy, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants first and then recover the same from the owner & driver of the vehicle and held in para 24 as under : -

“24. In the case at hand, it is clearly demonstrable from the materials brought on record that the vehicle at the time of the accident did not have a permit. The appellants had taken the stand that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. That apart, they had not stated whether the vehicle had temporary permit or any other kind of permit. The exceptions that have been carved out under Section 66 of the Act, needless to emphasise, are to be pleaded and proved. The exceptions cannot be taken aid of in the course of an argument to seek absolution from liability. U