(MAC No.5/2019) 2026:CGHC:20538 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 5 of 2019 {Arising out of award dated 16-11-2018 passed by the 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur in Motor Accident Claim Case No.462/2017} 1. Smt. Panch Bai Banjare, W/o Late Naresh Banjare, aged about 43 years. 2. Sanjay Banjare, S/o Late Naresh Banjare, aged about 23 years. 3. Vijay Kumar Banjare, S/o Late Naresh Banjare, aged about 21 years, R/o Village Kachhar, Ward No. 11, Thana Koni, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) ... Appellants versus 1. Kundan Chature, S/o Shankar Chature, aged about 24 years, R/o C/o Dalluram Yadav, B/H/Police Thana Shiv Nager, Shankar Nager, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). Hallmukam Hathbandh, Thana Simga, District Balouda Bazar, Chhattisgarh. (Driver of the offending vehicle Tata S.No.CG-04/LG-3173). (Driver) 2. Deelip Kumar Chature, S/o Tekram Chature, aged about 24 years, R/o House No.223, Purani Basti, Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner of the offending vehicle Tata S.No.CG-04/LG- 3173). (Owner) 3. Branch Manager, I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, V.R. Plaza, 2nd Floor, Office No.5, Link Road, Bilaspur, Thana Civil Line, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of the offending vehicle Tata S. No.CG-04/LG-3173). (Insurer) ... Respondents SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2026.05.02 17:21:32 +0530 (MAC No.5/2019) For Appellants : Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 01/05/2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants herein/claimants seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation and for fastening liability upon respondent No.3 herein/Insurance Company, challenging the impugned award dated 16-11-2018 passed by the 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur in Motor Accident Claim Case No.462/2017, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of ₹ 6,90,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum as compensation for the death of Naresh Banjare, aged about 45 years at the time of incident. The appellants herein/claimants are wife and two sons, respectively, of deceased Naresh Banjare. 2. Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants herein/claimants, would submit that the compensation awarded is not just and proper and though the deceased was gratuitous passenger, yet, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sunita and others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others1, the principle of pay and recover 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1464 (MAC No.5/2019) would apply and thus, the Insurance Company would first pay the amount of compensation and thereafter, recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. 3. Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 herein/driver and owner, respectively, would oppose the appeal and support the impugned award and submit that the owner is not liable to pay the amount of compensation. 4. Ms. Harneet Kaur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 herein/Insurance Company, would also oppose the appeal and support the impugned award and submit that the vehicle was being plied in terms of the breach of policy. 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. The Claims Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding in paragraph 20 of the impugned award that the offending vehicle, being a goods carrying vehicle, was being plied carrying gratuitous passengers sitting in it and that finding has attained finality. 7. In Sunita (supra), the Supreme Court has held as under: - “13. Adverting to the facts in hand, from a bare perusal of the record, it is borne that the vehicle in question was insured with “Liability Only Policy” and no premium was paid to cover the driver, owner, or a gratuitous passenger travelling therein. However, even then, in our view, the Courts below erred in holding that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimant-appellants, for the (MAC No.5/2019) principle of “Pay and Recover” ought to have been invoked. As such, we are inclined to interfere with the above findings of the Courts below. 14. We must advert to the exposition of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur2. The deceased therein was travelling as a gratuitous passenger, and due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, lost his life. The Insurance Company was directed to satisfy the amount awarded by the Courts below and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, as the premium was not paid by the owner of the vehicle towards gratuitous passenger. 15. The above position has been followed by this Court in Anu Bhanvara v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.,3 wherein the injured person was travelling as a gratuitous passenger and was not covered under the Insurance Policy, the driver and owner of the vehicle was held liable for payment of compensation amount. This Court applied the principle of “Pay and Recover” and directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount and, thereafter, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 16. The aforementioned principle was adopted by this Court in various judgments of this Court in Amrit Lal Sood v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar4; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C.M. Jaya5; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Upendra Rao6; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vimal Devi7; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul8; Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh9; and Puttappa v. Rama Naik10. 17. Applying the above expositions of law, the Courts below ought to have directed the Insurance Company to indemnify the amount and thereafter recover the same.” 8. In that view of the matter, it is held that the principle of pay and recover would apply in the present case. 2 (2004) 2 SCC 1. 3 (2020) 20 SCC 632. 4 (1998) 3 SCC 744. 5 (2002) 2 SCC 278. 6 (2004) 8 SCC 517. 7 2010 SCC OnLine SC 49. 8 (2013) 2 SCC 41. 9 (2017) 4 SCC 796. 10 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3496. Page 5 of 6 (MAC No.5/2019) 9. Now, the question of enhancement of compensation would arise. 10. In the present case, income of the deceased has been assessed by the Claims Tribunal as ₹ 4,500/- per month, whereas it should be ₹ 7,800/- per month as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the Office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, and thus, in the opinion of this Court, monthly income of the deceased should be ₹ 7,800/- (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time). 11. Thus, considering the evidence available on record and that the deceased was aged about 45 years at the time of incident, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi11, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors12 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 13 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:- S. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court/New Calculation 1. Income ₹ 4,500/- per month. Yearly Income = ₹ 4,500 x 12 = ₹ 54,000/-. ₹ 7,800/- per month. Yearly Income = ₹ 7,800 x 12 = ₹ 93,600/-. 2. Future Prospect 25% i.e. ₹ 13,500/-; ₹ 54,000 + 13,500 = ₹ 67,500/- 25% i.e. ₹ 23,400/-; ₹ 93,600 + 23,400 = ₹ 1,17,000/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 = ₹ 22,500/- ₹ 67,500 – 22,500 = ₹ 45,000/- (-) 1/3 = ₹ 39,000/- ₹ 1,17,000 – 39,000 = ₹ 78,000/- 11 (2017) 16 SCC 680 12 (2009) 6 SCC 121 13 (2018) 18 SCC 130 (MAC No.5/2019) 4. Multiplier (x) 14 = ₹ 6,30,000/- (x) 14 = ₹ 10,92,000/- 5. Funeral Expenses ₹ 10,000/- ₹ 15,000/- 6. Loss of Estate ₹ 10,000/- ₹ 15,000/- 7. Loss of Spousal Consortium ₹ 40,000/- ₹ 40,000/- 8. Loss of Filial Consortium NIL ₹ 40,000/- x 2 = ₹ 80,000/- Total ₹ 6,90,000/- ₹ 12,42,000/- 12. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹ 6,90,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹ 12,42,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹ 6,90,000/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of ₹ 5,52,000/-. Firstly, the Insurance Company/respondent No.3 herein is directed to deposit the total amount of compensation of ₹ 12,42,000/- within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the Insurance Company will be at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. The additional amount of compensation shall also carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 17-8-2017 till its realisation. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 13. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma