1 2025:CGHC:48434 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1302 of 2019  Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Madina Building, Kutchery Chowk, G.E. Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh. Represented Through Asstt. Manager, T.P. Hub, At - T.P. Hub Office, Rama Trade Centre, Near Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Respdt. No. 3), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Mangleshwar @ Mangesh @ Ghonchu S/o Shatruhan Ghritlahare Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Kathiya (1), Police Station Kharora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Present Address - Latuwa, Police Station Balodabazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 2. Tamradhwaj Purena S/o Pawanl Lal Purena Aged About 36 Years R/o Village - Kathiya (1), Police Station Kharora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Jagdish S/o Shankar Lal Singhania Aged About 40 Years R/o Gandhi Chowk, Nevra, Police Station Nevra, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Bennoon, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.N. Pusty, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate For Respondents No. 2 and 3 : None, though served Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 2 19/09/2025 1) The appellant–Insurance Company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar (C.G.) in MAC Claim No. 49/2018 dated 14.03.2019, by which liability to pay a total compensation of Rs. 10,98,800/- has been fastened upon the Insurance Company. 2) It is the case of Insurance Company that the claimant (injured) was travelling in the goods vehicle bearing registration No. CG- 04-JB-1545 which was insured for goods and the claimant was a gratuitous passenger, therefore, the Insurance Company is not responsible, which the Claims Tribunal has rejected and fastened liability upon the Insurance Company against which the present appeal has been preferred. 3) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in fastening liability upon the Insurance Company, as the claimant was admittedly, travelling in the goods vehicle and as per Insurance Policy, premium was paid for driver, conductor, cleaner and third party. He further submits that according to the policy, risk of driver, conductor, cleaner and third party was covered but as the claimant was the person sitting as gratuitous passenger in the said goods vehicle, as such, the Insurance Company is not responsible. Therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside and the appeal deserves to be 3 allowed. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimant opposes. 5) Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 7) Admittedly, the claimant was travelling in the goods vehicle and the insurance policy only covers driver, conductor, cleaner and third party for whom the premium was paid. In that view of the matter, the Insurance Company is not responsible for the injuries sustained by the claimant. 8) Now, the question is, whether the principle of pay and recover would apply? 9) In this regard, the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Anu Bhanvara and others v. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and others1 is required to be noticed herein profitably in which the Supreme Court in case of gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle duly insured has dealt with the question whether payment of compensation is to be made jointly by owner and driver of vehicle, or by insurer, which could thereafter be recovered by insurer from owner and driver, and it has been held as under :- 1. (2020) 20 SCC 632 4 "9. The next question is as to which of the respondents, that is, the owner and driver, or the insurer of the vehicle, would be liable for payment of such compensation. As regard the liability for payment of compensation, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that since the vehicle was admittedly insured with Respondent 1 insurance company, the principle of pay and recover would be invoked even in case of a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle. The insurance company should thus be made liable for the payment of compensation to the appellants and in turn they would have the right to realise/recover the same from the owner and driver of the vehicle. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the following decisions of this Court, namely, Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Puttappa v. Rama Naik; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vimal Devis; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Upendra Rao; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C.M. Jaya and Amrit Lal Sood v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company has contended that since the claimants were gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle, in which case the liability for payment of compensation for death or bodily injury to the passengers of such goods vehicle would not be covered, hence the principle of pay and recover would not apply. It has thus been contended that the order of the High Court is perfectly justified in law and calls for no interference by this Court. In support of her submission, the learned counsel has relied on following decisions, namely, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kaushalaya Devi; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rattani; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prema Devi; Bharati AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Aandi and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lal Singh. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the various decisions cited by the learned counsel for the parties. The insurance of the vehicle, though as a goods vehicle, is not disputed by the parties. The 5 claimants in the present case are young children who have suffered permanent disability on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. Thus, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the principle of "pay and recover" should be directed to be invoked in the present case." 10) Coming to the facts of the present case, the Supreme Court in Anu Bhanvara (supra) has clearly held that the principle of “pay and recover” is required to be invoked in case of gratuitous passengers travelling in a goods vehicle. 11) In that view of the matter, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellant Insurance Company is made liable to pay the awarded compensation to the claimants, however, it shall have the right to realize the said amount of compensation from respondents No. 2 and 3, driver and owner, respectively, in accordance with law. In conclusion, the appellant Insurance Company is directed to pay/disburse the awarded compensation to the claimants first and recover the same from driver and owner. 12) There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE A j i n k y aDigitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.09.24 14:06:47 +0530