Chattisgarh High Court
Divisional Manager vs Bholaram on 25 March, 2026
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Page 1 of 6
(MAC No.1103/2019)
2026:CGHC:14324
Digitally
signed by
SISTA
SOMAYAJULU
AFR
SISTA
SOMAYAJULU Date:
2026.03.27
18:30:31
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1103 of 2019
{Arising out of award dated 28-2-2019 passed by the 5th Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Motor Accident Claim Case
No.331/2014}
Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited,
Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh,
Through Authorised Signatory, Divisional Manager, Divisional
Office, United India Insurance Company Limited, 2 nd Floor, Guru
Kripa Towers, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Line, Tehsil &
District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
(N.A.No.3)
... Appellant
versus
1. Bholaram, Aged 43 yrs, S/o Sudhav Ram
2. Ku. Pooja, Aged 17 yrs, D/o Bholaram
3. Ku. Chandani, Aged 15 yrs, D/o Bholaram
4. Ku. Deepmala, Aged 14 yrs, D/o Bholaram
5. Shubham, Aged 13 yrs, S/o Bholaram
Respondent No.2 to 5 are minor through their natural guardian
father Respondent No.1 Bholaram. All above resident of through Mahesh Traders, Takhatpur, P.S. Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
(Claimants)
6. Bansilal, Aged 33 yrs, S/o Manparen Lal, R/o B.C.M. Khongapani, P.S. Khongapani, District Koria, Chhattisgarh.
(Driver)
7. Pannawati Rajwade, Aged 30 yrs, D/o Ramjitan Rajwade, R/o Address No.1 Nawapara, Post Karanji, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh, Page 2 of 6 (MAC No.1103/2019) Address No. 2 Takhatpur, Near Bus Stand, P.S. Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
(Owner) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 to 5 : Mrs. Bhagwati Kashyap and Mrs. Bhawana Chandrawanshi, Advocates.
Single Bench:-
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 25/03/2026
1. The appellant herein/Insurance Company has preferred this appeal against the impugned award dated 28-2-2019 passed by the 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Motor Accident Claim Case No.331/2014, by a compensation of ₹ 49,84,150/- has been awarded to the claimants/respondents No.1 to 5 herein for the death of Sonia Bai, aged about 41 years at the time of incident. The claimants/respondents No.1 to 5 are husband and children, respectively, of deceased Sonia Bai.
2. The appellant herein/Insurance Company has preferred this appeal questioning the liability to pay compensation of ₹ 49,84,150/- along with 6% interest fastened upon it, whereas the claimants/ respondents No.1 to 5 have preferred appeal seeking enhancement of the amount under award.
3. Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein/Insurance Company, would submit that the Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in fastening liability upon the Page 3 of 6 (MAC No.1103/2019) Insurance Company as at the relevant point of time, the driver of the offending vehicle was holding two licenses Exs.D-1 & D-4, which is in violation of Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'), therefore, the appellant herein/Insurance Company is not responsible.
4. Mrs. Bhagwati Kashyap, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants/respondents No.1 to 5 herein, would submit that holding two driving licenses would not amount to breach of policy and at the best, driver of the vehicle would be liable to punishment under Section 182(1) of the Act with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine of ten thousand rupees or with both, but it cannot be termed as breach of policy. She would further submit that the claimants have come out with an enhancement of ₹ 16,53,552/-, as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and the amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced accordingly.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection.
6. Admittedly, driver Bansilal was examined on behalf of non-applicant No.3, as DW-1. He had two driving licenses, one is Ex.D-1 for the period from 14-6-2004 to 13-6-2024 and another is ExD-4 effective from 4-1-2005 to 3-1-2025. As per Section 6 of the Act, a person cannot possess two driving licenses at a time, which are in force.
Section 6 of the Act states as under: -
Page 4 of 6
(MAC No.1103/2019) "6. Restrictions on the holding of driving licences.--(1) No person shall, while he holds any driving licence for the time being in force, hold any other driving licence except a learner's licence or a driving licence issued in accordance with the provisions of section 18 or a document authorising, in accordance with the rules made under section 139, the person specified therein to drive a motor vehicle.
(2) No holder of a driving licence or a learner's licence shall permit it to be used by any other person.
(3) Nothing in this section shall prevent a licensing authority having the jurisdiction referred to in sub-section (1) of section 9 from adding to the classes of vehicles which the driving licence authorises the holder to drive."
7. As such, Section 6 of the Act puts restrictions on the holding of driving licenses while he holds a driving license which is in force. However, the consequence of non-compliance of Section 6 has been prescribed in Section 182(1) of the Act, which states as under: -
"182. Offences relating to licences.--(1) Whoever, being disqualified under this Act for holding or obtaining a driving licence drives a motor vehicle in a public place or in any other place, or applies for or obtains a driving licence or, not being entitled to have a driving licence issued to him free of endorsement, applies for or obtains a driving licence without disclosing the endorsement made on a driving licence previously held by him shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine of ten thousand rupees or with both, and any driving licence so obtained by him shall be of no effect."
8. As such, the person holding driving license in violation of Section 6 of the Act would be liable for punishment under Section 182(1) of the Act with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine of ten thousand rupees or with both.
9. In the instant case, admittedly, the driver of the offending vehicle namely Banshilal Rajak (DW-1), who has also been examined by the Page 5 of 6 (MAC No.1103/2019) Insurance Company, was holding two driving licenses Exs.D-1 & D-4 which he has explained that he had lost the earlier driving license Ex.D-1, therefore, he got the new driving license issued vide Ex.D-4. As such, driver of the offending vehicle Bansilal was holding two driving licenses at a time and both were in force at the time of accident, which will be violation of Section 6 of the Act, but same cannot be held as breach of policy and therefore the Insurance Company cannot avoid the payment of the amount of compensation holding to be a breach of policy. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal has rightly held that the driver has plied the vehicle in valid terms of the policy in view of the explanation offered by the driver of the vehicle Bansilal (DW-1) - witness No.1 of non-applicant No.3. It is not the case of the appellant herein/Insurance Company that either of the driving licenses is forged or not obtained in accordance with law.
10. In that view of the matter, in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi1, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors3, the claimants/respondents No.1 to 5 herein would be entitled for compensation in the following manner: -
S. Heads Compensation Compensation
No. awarded by the awarded by this
Tribunal Court/New
Calculation
1
(2017) 16 SCC 680
2
(2009) 6 SCC 121
3
(2018) 18 SCC 130
Page 6 of 6
(MAC No.1103/2019)
1. Income ₹ 4,68,967/- per annum ₹ 4,68,967/- per annum
2. Future NIL (+) 30% i.e. ₹ 1,40,690/-;
Prospect total yearly income = ₹
4,68,967 + 1,40,690 = ₹
6,09,657/-.
3. Deduction (-) ¼ = ₹ 1,17,242/- (-) ¼ = ₹ 1,52,414/-
₹ 4,68,967 - 1,17,242 = ₹ ₹ 6,09,657 - 1,52,414 = ₹ 3,51,725/- 4,57,243/-
4. Multiplier (x) 14 = ₹ 49,24,150/- (x) 14 = ₹ 64,01,402/-
5. Loss of ₹ 10,000/- ₹ 18,150/-
Estate
6. Funeral ₹ 10,000/- ₹ 18,150/-
Expenses
7. Loss of ₹ 40,000/- ₹ 40,000/- x 5 = ₹ Consortium 2,00,000/-
Total ₹ 49,84,150/- ₹ 66,37,702/-
11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹ 49,84,150/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹ 66,37,702/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹ 49,84,150/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of ₹ 16,53,552/-. The concerned party as directed by the learned Claims Tribunal is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 18-7-2014 till its realisation. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.
12. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. No order as to cost(s).
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma