(MAC Nos.1069/2020 & 1032/2020) 2026:CGHC:27448 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1069 of 2020 {Arising out of award dated 12-3-2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in MACT No.193/2019} 1. Rizwana Akhtar, W/o Late Javed Akhtar, aged about 30 years. 2. Farhan Akhtar, D/o Late Javed Akhtar, aged about 13 years. 3. Joha Akhtar, D/o Late Javed Akhtar, aged about 7 years. Appellant No.2 to 3 is minor through legal Guardian Mother Rizwana Akhtar, W/o Late Javed Akhtar. All are R/o Back Side of Ambedakar School, Ambedakar Nagar, Bilaspur. Hall Mukam Seepat, Thana Seepat, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). (Claimants) --- Appellants versus 1. Ravindra Bothra, W/o Rakesh Kumar Jain, aged about 28 years. R/o Kalyanpur, Post Kalyanpur, Thana Gadwa, (Jharkhand). Probable Address Station Road, Neharu Nagar, Thana Neharu Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). (Driver of the offending vehicle Swift Desire Car C.G.No.04/K.Z./ 4843). (Driver) 2. Chandra Prakash Bothra, S/o Bhikham Chand Bothra, aged about 55 years. R/o Kalika Para, Station Road, Indira Gandhi Ward, Raipur District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). (Owner of the offending vehicle Swift Desire Car C.G.No.04/K.Z./ 4843). (Owner) 3. Branch Manager, S.B.I. General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Rama Port, 2nd Floor, Vyapara Vihar Main Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). Probable Address – SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2026.07.04 17:05:26 +0530 (MAC Nos.1069/2020 & 1032/2020) Divisional Office – S.B.I. Above Main Branch, T.T. Nagar, New Market, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh). (Insurer of the offending vehicle Swift Desire Car C.G.No.04/K.Z./ 4843). (Insurer) --- Respondents AND MAC No. 1032 of 2020 {Arising out of award dated 12-3-2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in MACT No.193/2019} SBI General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Office, II Floor, Rama Port, Vyapar Vihar Main Road, Bilaspur, Tehsil & District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Zonal Office Address – Above SBI Main Branch, T.T. Nagar, New Market, Bhopal (M.P.) (Non-Applicant No.3) --- Appellant Versus 1. Rizwana Akhtar, Wd/o Late Shri Javed Akhtar, Aged about 30 years 2. Farhan Akhtar, S/o Late Shri Javed Akhtar, Aged about 13 years 3. Joha Akhtar, D/o Late Shri Javed Akhtar Respondent No.2 & 3 are minors are represented by their natural guardian Mother Rizwana Akhtar, Wd/o Late Shri Javed Akhtar All R/o Behind Ambedkar School, Ambedkar Nagar, Bilaspur Presently residing at Seepat, Thana Seepat, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 4. Ravindra Bothra, S/o Rakesh Kumar Jain, Aged about 28 years, R/o Kalyanpur, Post Kalyanpur, Thana Gadwa, District Gadwa, Jharkhand Present Address Station Road, Nehru Nagar, Thana Nehru Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 5. Chandra Prakash Bothra, S/o Bhikhamchand Bothra, Aged about 55 years, R/o Kalika Para, Station Road, Indira Gandhi Ward, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner) --- Respondents (MAC Nos.1069/2020 & 1032/2020) For Claimants : Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate. For Insurance Company : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 03/07/2026 1. Since both the above titled appeals, filed in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’), arise out of a common award dated 12-3-2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in MACT No.193/2019 and since common questions of facts and law are involved in both these appeals, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The Insurance Company has preferred MAC No.1032/2020 questioning the award fastening liability upon it, whereas the claimants have preferred MAC No.1069/2020 seeking enhancement of the awarded amount. 3. Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants, would submit that the Insurance Company has rightly been fastened liability and just and proper compensation has not been awarded. 4. Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, would submit that the insurance policy has been exclusive, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. Page 4 of 6 (MAC Nos.1069/2020 & 1032/2020) 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 Supreme Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rula and others1 held that the ground that the cheque through which premium was paid was dishonoured, would not affect the rights of the third party which had accrued on the issuance of the policy on the date on which the accident took place, and observed in paragraph 13 as under: - “13. This decision, which is a three-Judge Bench decision, squarely covers the present case also. The subsequent cancellation of the insurance policy in the instant case on the ground that the cheque through which premium was paid was dishonoured, would not affect the rights of the third party which had accrued on the issuance of the policy on the date on which the accident took place. If, on the date of accident, there was a policy of insurance in respect of the vehicle in question, the third party would have a claim against the Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle would have to be indemnified in respect of the claim of that party. Subsequent cancellation of the insurance policy on the ground of non-payment of premium would not affect the rights already accrued in favour of the third party.” 7. The aforesaid decision in Rula’s case (supra) has subsequently been followed with approval by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Laxmamma and others2. 8. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Insurance Company has rightly been fastened liability and 1 (2000) 3 SCC 195 2 (2012) 5 SCC 234 (MAC Nos.1069/2020 & 1032/2020) the principle of pay and recover has also rightly been applied. Consequently, the principle of pay and recover is maintained and it is held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount of compensation. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company (MAC No.1032/2020) is dismissed. 9. So far as the appeal filed by the claimants (MAC No.1069/2020) is concerned, 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 ₹ 3,11,500/- per annum ₹ 3,11,500/- per annum 2. Future Prospect (+) 40% i.e. ₹ 1,24,600/-; ₹ 3,11,500 + 1,24,600 = ₹ 4,36,100/- (+) 40% i.e. ₹ 1,24,600/-; ₹ 3,11,500 + 1,24,600 = ₹ 4,36,100/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 = ₹ 1,45,366/- ₹ 4,36,100 – 1,45,366 = ₹ 2,90,734/- (-) 1/3 = ₹ 1,45,366/- ₹ 4,36,100 – 1,45,366 = ₹ 2,90,734/- 4. Multiplier (x) 16 = ₹ 46,51,744/- (x) 16 = ₹ 46,51,744/- 5. Loss of Estate ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 18,000/- 6. Funeral Expenses ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 18,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium ₹ 40,000/- ₹ 44,000/- x 3 = ₹ 1,32,000/- Total ₹ 47,21,750/- ₹ 48,19,744/- 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹ 47,21,750/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹ 48,19,744/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹ 47,21,750/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of ₹ 97,994/- (rounded off to ₹ 98,000/-). The concerned respondent 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 (MAC Nos.1069/2020 & 1032/2020) compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 6-2-2019 till its realisation. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 11. Accordingly, the appeal filed on behalf of the claimants is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above, whereas the appeal filed on behalf of the Insurance Company is dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma