1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 754 of 2018 Judgment Reserved on: 9.12.2025 Judgment Delivered on: 31.1.2026 1 - The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Local Office Sattigudi Chowk Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Renu Devi W/o Late Nanduram Aged About 30 Years Present Address- Orissa Road, In Front Of C.W.C., Bhilai Jor Canal, Gadumaria, Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Permanent Address- Village Kakoria, Post Kajratnavadih, Thana Husanabad, District Palamu (Jharkhand), District : Palamu, Jharkhand. 2 - Minor Aman Kumar Ravi S/o Late Nanduram Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Guardian Mother Smt. Renu Devi W/o Late Nanduram, Present Address- Orissa Road, In Front Of C.W.C., Bhilai Jor Canal, Gadumaria, Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Permanent Address- Village Kakoria, Post Kajratnavadih, Thana Husanabad, District Palamu (Jharkhand), District : Palamu, Jharkhand. 3 - Minor Jyoti Kumari D/o Late Nanduram Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Guardian Mother Smt. Renu Devi W/o Late Nanduram, Present Address- Orissa Road, In Front Of C.W.C., Bhilai Jor Canal, Gadumaria, Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Permanent Address- Village Kakoria, Post Kajratnavadih, Thana Husanabad, District Palamu (Jharkhand), District : Palamu, Jharkhand. 4 - Minor Anand Kumar Ravi S/o Late Nanduram Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Guardian Mother Smt. Renu Devi W/o Late Nanduram, Present Address- Orissa Road, In Front Of C.W.C., Bhilai Jor Canal, Gadumaria, Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Permanent Address- Village Kakoria, Post Kajratnavadih, Thana Husanabad, District Palamu (Jharkhand) (Claimants), District : Palamu, Jharkhand. 5 - Ajmer Ansari S/o Yasin Ansari Aged About 26 Years Occupation Vehicle Driver, R/o Beriyadamar, Thana Dandai, District Gadhwa (Jharkhand) District Gudgaon (Hariyana), District : Gurgaon, Haryana. 6 - Firm Indramani India Private Limited Director Jitendra Singh S/o Dhruv Narayan Singh, Age 43 Years, Occupation Vehicle Owner, R/o Maharana Pratap Nagar, Tifra, Thana Civil Line, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 4 & 6 : None. 3 For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Judgment 1. The present is Insurance Company’s appeal assailing the award dated 6.1.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 92/2016, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 13,93,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum in favour of claimants/respondents No. 1 to 4 herein. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 27.06.2016 at about 8:30 PM, the deceased Nanduram was driving a truck without holding any valid driving licence and, due to a collision caused by another vehicle, namely Hyva bearing registration No. C.G.04/LB/8845, he sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot; that, in the said proceedings, neither the owner nor the driver of the offending Hyva No. C.G.04/LB/8845 entered the witness box or led any evidence, and only the claimant–widow was examined, as no eyewitness to the occurrence could be produced by the claimants; that the learned Tribunal, in paragraph 13 of the award, recorded a categorical finding that at the time of the accident the offending Hyva No. C.G.04/LB/8845 was being driven by respondent No.5, Ajmer Ansari, without a valid driving licence, thereby holding that 4 there was a clear breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy; however, despite such finding, the Tribunal erroneously directed the appellant–insurance company to first satisfy the awarded compensation and thereafter recover the same from respondent No.5, the driver, and respondent No.6, the owner of the offending vehicle; that the appellant–insurance company duly adduced its evidence by examining its officer as well as an official witness from the RTO office to substantiate the breach of policy conditions; that the claimants failed to produce any documentary evidence whatsoever regarding the income or the age of the deceased Nanduram before the Tribunal; and that, notwithstanding the absence of proof relating to income and age, the Tribunal has wrongly awarded excessive compensation by granting future prospects and has further awarded interest at an excessive rate, both of which deserve to be reconsidered. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the learned Claims Tribunal, while recording a categorical finding that the offending vehicle was being plied in clear breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, has nonetheless erroneously fastened the initial liability upon the insurance company. He further submits that despite holding that there was a breach of policy conditions, the Tribunal has directed the insurance company to first satisfy the award amount and thereafter recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, which, according to learned counsel, is legally 5 unsustainable in the facts of the present case. He further submits that, in effect, the insurance company has been exonerated from ultimate liability to pay compensation, however, being aggrieved by the direction of “pay and recover” passed by the learned Claims Tribunal, the insurance company has been constrained to prefer the present appeal solely to challenge the said direction, which is contrary to settled principles of law. He has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs. Smt. Raj Kumari and Ors, reported in 2007 (12) SCC 768 and in the matter of Lachoo Ram & Ors vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, reported in (2014) 13 SCC 254. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5 has opposed the aforesaid submissions and reliefs sought, contending that the contentions raised by the appellant/insurance company is devoid of merit, contrary to the factual matrix on record, and unsustainable in the eyes of law, and has therefore urged that no interference is warranted and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. None for respondents No. 1 to 4 & 6. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Akula Narayana vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Another, reported 6 in 2025 SCC Online SC 2377, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is a clear case where additional premium was collected by the insurer for covering the risk of driver, conductor and cleaner. The claim was in respect of death of one person and therefore, even though the policy may not cover the risk of passengers, it covered the risk of at least three persons which may or may not be passengers. In support of its submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Mata Ram versus National Insurance Company Limited & Another in the alternative, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the insurer had taken additional premium to cover risk of three persons who travel in the vehicle, even if there has been a violation of the policy conditions, the insurer cannot be relieved of its liability to make good the compensation though it may recover the same from the owner in light of the pay and recover principle recognized by this Court in National Insurance Company Limited versus Swaran Singh and Shamanna & Anr. versus Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Others 7 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurer submitted that the policy in question was a statutory policy; a gratuitous passenger, other than driver, conductor and cleaner, is not a third party and, therefore, the insurer would not be liable. In addition, the vehicle was a fiveseater vehicle, admittedly carrying nine passengers, there was thus breach of condition of insurance. As such the insurer cannot be held liable. Hence, no interference with the judgment of the High Court iscalled for 10. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the materials on record including the decisions cited before us. 11. At the outset, we may observe that there is no appeal by the insured against High Court's order holding him not entitled to the benefit of insurance In such circumstances, we have only to consider whether the High Court should have completely absolved the insurer of its liability or ought to have directed the insurer to pay with liberty to recover the same from the vehicle owner. 12. Where the contract of insurance is not disputed, even on breach of insurance conditions, this Court had allowed recovery of compensation from the insurer by giving right to the insurer to recover the same from the vehicle owner. The pay and recover principle has been consistently followed even though it was doubted in a 8 reference which remained unanswered Taking a conspectus of various pronouncements, this Court recently in Rama Bai v. Amit Minerals again applied the said principle and while allowing the appeal of the claimant directed that the insurance company shall satisfy the award and may recover from the insured. Following the aforesaid decisions, we deem it appropriate to allow the appeal by directing that the first respondent (ie, the insurer) shall satisfy the award, though, however, it can recover the amount so paid from the insured (i.e.. owner of the vehicle).” 8. Since the insurance company has not been held substantively liable to pay the compensation and the only direction issued by the learned Tribunal is to pay the awarded amount in the first instance with liberty to recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, this Court does not find the present case to be a fit one for interference with the impugned award; particularly in view of the settled legal position laid down in various pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and further taking note of the recent authoritative pronouncement on the issue governing “pay and recover” orders, the appeal, being devoid of merit and substance, is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. 9. 9. Since the liability to pay compensation has not been fastened upon the insurance company, it is neither necessary nor incumbent upon the insurance company to assail or contest the 9 other grounds arising out of the impugned award, as those grounds are, in fact, open to challenge only at the instance of the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle upon whom the liability has been fastened, consequently, any such grounds fall outside the permissible scope of challenge by the insurance company and do not call for consideration at its behest. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 9.12.2025 31.1.2026 - 31.1.2026 Raghu Jat