[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
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,
(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
(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: -
(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
(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
(2017) 16 SCC 680
(2009) 6 SCC 121
(2018) 18 SCC 130
(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
