Dismissed

Cholamandlam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Ramkumari Pandey

Chhattisgarh HC15 Sept 2026MAC/554/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal dismissed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, holding that an insurance company cannot challenge a 'pay and recover' award even if the Claims Tribunal found a breach of policy conditions regarding the driver's license, as per prevailing Supreme Court precedents. The company must first pay and may later recover from the owner/driver.

What the court decided

AI extract

Cholamandlam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt… — Insurance | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

	Digitally signed by SHUBHAM
SHUBHAM	SINGH
SINGH	RAGHUVANSHI
RAGHUVANSHI	Date:
	2026.09.16
	15:59:49 +0530

¶3

CGHC010079342025

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 554 of 2025

¶7

Cholamandlam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Present Address Simran Tower 2nd Floor, Pandri Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Smt. Ramkumari Pandey W/o Late Ashok Pandey Aged About 38 Years R/o Bamhnidih, Tehsil And P.S.Bamhnidih, District- JanjgirChampa (C.G.)

¶10

2 - Dhiraj Kumar Pandey S/o Late Ashok Pandey Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Ramkumari Pandey, W/o Late Ashok Pandey, R/o Bamhnidih, Tehsil And P.S.Bamhnidih, DistrictJanjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶11

3 - Aman Kumar Pandey S/o Late Ashok Pandey Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Ramkumari Pandey, W/o Late Ashok Pandey, R/o Bamhnidih, Tehsil And P.S.Bamhnidih, DistrictJanjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶12

4 - Tushar Rathore S/o Tileshwar Prasad Rathore Aged About 21 Years R/o Soniyapath, Tehsila And P.S. Saragaon, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶13

¶14

5 - Rajkumar Agrawal Caste Agrawal, R/o Naya Baradwar, TehsilBaradwar, District- Sakti (C.G.)

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

For Appellant	: Ms. Mansi Bandey, Advocate on
	behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent No. 4	: Mr. Vishwanath Prasad, Advocate.

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

(16.09.2026)

¶20

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance company challenging an order of pay and recover of the amount of compensation being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 06.12.2024 passed in Claim Case No.46/2023, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.15,46,780/- as compensation under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 to the claimants/Respondents No. 1 to 3, who are the wife and children of deceased Ashok Pandey, who died in a road accident which took place on 27.02.2023.

¶21

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in passing the award against the appellant/Insurance company by holding that respondent No. 4

¶22

¶23

was not in possession of a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident that is a breach of policy. It is further submitted that, therefore, the appellant cannot be held liable to satisfy the award and is liable to be exonerated from its liability. Therefore, an order of “pay and recover” may be set aside.

¶24

3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 supported the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal.

¶25

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶26

5. In the case at hand, it is true that the learned Claims Tribunal recorded a finding regarding breach of the policy conditions on the ground that at the time of the accident, the driver, namely, Tushar Rathore, was not in possession of a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. However, while considering the said breach, the learned Tribunal has directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the award amount at the first instance with liberty to recover the same from the owner cum driver of the offending vehicle.

¶27

6. In view of the settled legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sunita and Ors. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Ors, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1464 and Manuara Khatun and Others Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh and

¶28

¶29

Others, (2017) 4 SCC 796 , since the vehicle was insured with the appellant/insurance company and there is a breach of policy, the direction of “pay and recover” issued by the learned Claims Tribunal does not call for any interference. The Insurance Company has failed to make out any ground warranting interference with the impugned award. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company, being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed .

¶30

7. Records of the Tribunal along with a copy of this judgment be sent forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶33

-Shubham

Cholamandlam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Ramkumari Pandey

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Cholamandlam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Ramkumari Pandey

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases