[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Branch Manager United India Insurance ... vs Nand Kumar Sai on 30 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:14762
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 932 of 2019
Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Limited Micro Office,
Plaza Complex Road, Pathalgaon, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh,
Through Authorized Signatory United India Insurance Company Limited
Divisional Office, 2nd Floor Guru Kripa Towers Vyapar Vihar Road,
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh..............(App. N.A.No.03), District : Bilaspur,
SAIFAN signed by Chhattisgarh
Digitally
KHAN SAIFAN
KHAN ... Appellant
Versus
1 - Nand Kumar Sai S/o Late Mohan Sai Aged About 37 Years Caste
Kanvar, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Muskuti, P.S. And Tahsil
Kansabel, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh............(Claimant), District :
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Sanjay Kumar Bhagat Aged About 31 Years R/o Kharhanguda, P.S.
Bagbahar, Tahsil Pathalgaon, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh...................
(Owner), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Anthresh Nirala Aged About 26 Years Caste Uraon, R/o Dumarmuda,
P.S. Bagbahar, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh..............(Driver), District :
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
[Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant : Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Advocate
For Respondent-2 : Mr. Shrikant Kaushik, Advocate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
(Order on Board)
30.03.2026
1. In this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act,
1988 (for short the "MV Act"), the appellant-Insurance Company is
calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned
award dated 23.01.2019, passed by the learned Claims Tribunal,
whereby the claim application filed by the claimant has been allowed
and compensation to the tune of Rs.17,10,110/- have been awarded to
him alongwith interest @ 6% PA from the date of claim till its actual
realization, which amount is held to be payable by the appellant-
Insurance Company herein.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would
make sole submission that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in law
while applying the principle of pay and recovery under the facts and
circumstances of the present case. Therefore, to that extent the
impugned award is liable to be modified.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
would support the impugned award and prays for dismissal of the
appeal.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
submissions made herein-above and went through the record with
utmost circumspection.
5. In this regard, it would be appropriate to notice the decision of the
Supreme Court in Shamanna and another v. Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others1 whereby it has
been held in Para-13 & 15 as under:
"13. Since the reference to the larger Bench in
Parvathneni case [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Parvathneni, (2009) 8 SCC 785 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ)
568 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 943] has been disposed of by
1 (2018) 9 SCC 650
keeping the questions of law open to be decided in an
appropriate case, presently the decision in Swaran
Singh case [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran
Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] followed
in Laxmi Narain Dhut [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC 700 : (2007) 2 SCC
(Cri) 142] and other cases hold the field. The award
passed by the Tribunal directing the insurance company
to pay the compensation amount awarded to the
claimants and thereafter, recover the same from the
owner of the vehicle in question, is in accordance with
the judgment passed by this Court in Swaran Singh
[National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3
SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] and Laxmi Narain Dhut
[National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut,
(2007) 3 SCC 700 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 142] cases.
While so, in our view, the High Court ought not to have
interfered with the award passed by the Tribunal
directing the first respondent to pay and recover from the
owner of the vehicle. The impugned judgment
[Shamanna v. Laxman, 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 6928] of
the High Court exonerating the insurance company from
its liability and directing the claimants to recover the
compensation from the owner of the vehicle is set aside
and the award passed by the Tribunal is restored.
14. So far as the recovery of the amount from the owner
of the vehicle, the insurance company shall recover as
held in the decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Nanjappan [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanjappan,
(2004) 13 SCC 224 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 148] wherein this
Court held that : (SCC p. 226, para 8)
"8. ... For the purpose of recovering the same from
the insured, the insurer shall not be required to file a
suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the
executing court concerned as if the dispute between
the insurer and the owner was the subject-matter of
determination before the Tribunal and the issue is
decided against the owner and in favour of the
insurer."
15. In the result, the impugned judgment [Shamanna v.
Laxman, 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 6928] of the High Court
insofar as enhancement of the compensation to Rs
4,94,700 is concerned is affirmed. Insofar as direction of
the impugned judgment directing the appellant claimants
to recover the compensation from the owner of the
vehicle is concerned, is set aside and the appeal is
partly allowed. The first respondent insurance company
shall pay the enhanced compensation to the appellant
claimants along with the accrued interest and the
insurance company shall recover the same from the
owner of the vehicle. No costs."
5. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the above
principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court it is
quite vivid that learned Claims Tribunal after full-fledged trial clearly
recorded a finding in para-21 that since driver of the offending vehicle
was not having valid and effective driving license to ply the same on the
date of accident and, therefore, proceeded to apply the principle of pay
and recover and directed the appellant-insurance company to firstly pay
the amount of compensation to the claimant and thereafter recover it
from the owner of the offending vehicle, which finding in the considered
opinion of this Court is correct finding of fact based on evidence
available on record. The findings of the Claims Tribunal is neither
perverse nor contrary to the record. As such, I do not find any merit in
this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No cost.
sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
s@if
