(MAC No.823/2020) 2026:CGHC:23289 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 823 of 2020 {Arising out of award dated 15-1-2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir-Champa in Motor Accident Claim Case No.59/2019} The New India Insurance Company Limited, Korba, D.O., SADA Complex, Transport Nagar, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1. Smt. Meena Bai Patel, Age 41 years, W/o Late Ghanshyam Patel 2. Sunita Patel, Age 23 years, D/o Late Ghanshyam Patel 3. Sunil Patel, Age 22 years, S/o Late Ghanshyam Patel 4. Chhabi Lal Patel, Age 20 years, S/o Late Ghanshyam Patel 5. Sangeeta Patel, Age 19 years, D/o Late Ghanshyam Patel 6. Tetki Bai Patel, Age 65 years, W/o Late Samaroo Patel All Caste Patel, Resident Village Birgahani (Cha), Thana and Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 7. Ramesh Yadav, Age 31 years, S/o Ram Yadav, R/o Barpali Chowk, Near Gurudwara, Champa, Thana and Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Mr. Shashank Agrawal and Ms. Prerna Agrawal, Advocates. For Respondents No.1 to 6 : Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate. For Respondent No.7 : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Advocate. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2026.05.15 19:22:46 +0530 (MAC No.823/2020) Judgment on Board 15/05/2026 1. The appellant herein/Insurance Company has preferred this appeal questioning legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 15-1-2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir-Champa in Motor Accident Claim Case No.59/2019, by which the liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fastened upon the Insurance Company. 2. Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein/Insurance Company, would submit that the principle of pay and recover has wrongly been applied, as it is the case where the deceased was travelling as gratuitous passenger in the vehicle owned by respondent No.7, therefore, there should be complete exoneration of the Insurance Company from payment of compensation. In addition, he would further submit that 1/3rd ought to have been deducted, whereas, ¼ has been deducted by the Claims Tribunal. As such, the appeal be allowed and the Insurance Company be exonerated from the liability of paying compensation. 3. Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.7 – driver and owner of the offending vehicle, while supporting the cross appeal, would submit that liability would be fastened upon the Insurance Company as pay and recover would not apply. Page 3 of 4 (MAC No.823/2020) 4. 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. 5. The offending vehicle was admittedly and undisputedly, the goods carrying vehicle in which as per the admission of respondent No.7 – owner-cum-driver, as stated in para 9 of his evidence, the deceased was travelling along with his wife and furthermore, in para 12 also he has stated that on account of his rash and negligent driving, deceased Ghanshyam Patel sitting in the trolley sustained injury and died. As such, it is clearly borne out from the statement of respondent No.7 herein – owner-cum-driver, that the deceased was travelling along with his wife as gratuitous passenger in his vehicle. 6. Now, the question as to whether for gratuitous passenger, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the compensation amount to the claimant and thereafter, recover the same from the driver and owner of the vehicle is no longer res integra as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sunita and others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others1 in which their Lordships relying upon their earlier decision in the matter of Anu Bhanvara v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.2 have clearly held that even for person travelling as a gratuitous passenger, though it is not covered under the Insurance Policy, the principle of pay and recover would apply. As such, the argument of learned counsel appearing on 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1464 2 (2020) 20 SCC 632 (MAC No.823/2020) behalf of the appellant herein/Insurance Company that the principle of pay and recover would not apply, deserves to be rejected, especially when the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle has clearly admitted that the deceased was travelling in the goods carrying vehicle which is the offending vehicle. It is not in dispute that the deceased was not travelling as gratuitous passenger and the driver himself has admitted in his statement that due to his rash and negligent driving, the accident took place and the deceased died. Thus, the cross appeal filed on behalf of respondent No.7 herein is rejected as the same cannot be entertained. 7. The next submission raised on behalf of the appellant herein/Insurance Company is the quantum of compensation awarded is excessive and it deserves to be reduced as ¼ has been deducted, whereas it should be 1/3. 8. Taking into consideration the fact that the claimants are six in number being wife, mother and four children of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal is absolutely justified in deducting ¼ and I do not find any ground to interfere with the said finding. 9. Consequently, I do not find any merit in this appeal, it deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma