1 2025:CGHC:52187 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 173 of 2021 1 - Roshan Kumar Kunte S/o Late Tula Ram Kunte, Aged About 19 Years R/o Village - Tajim Khan Ka Makan, Ward No. 16, Bartoli, Jashpur District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Safed Bai Kunte Wd/o Late Tularam Kunte, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village - Kukurbhunka, Farsabahar, District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Minor Rakesh Kumar Kunte S/o Tularam Kunte, Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Appellant No.2 Herself. R/o Village - Kukurbhunka, Farsabahar, District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ravilal Baghel S/o Shri Balanand Baghel, R/o Village - Kukurbhunka, Khursitola, Tahsil - Farsabahar, District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ajay Baghel S/o Shri Ravi Lal Baghel, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village - Kukurbhunka, Khursitola, Tahsil - Farsabahar, District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Local Branch Office - Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Insurer), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Ganpati Bai W/o Shri Kandru Ram, Aged About 65 Years R/o Village - Kukurbhunka, Tahsil - Farsabahar, District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh NIRMALA RAO 2 5 - Kandru Ram S/o Late Motiram, Aged About 70 Years R/o Village - Kukurbhunka, Tahsil - Farsabahar, District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Shri Divyanand Patel, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Shri Rameshwar Yadav, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Bhupendra Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Shri Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 27.10.2025 1. The appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 30.1.2021, passed in Claim Case No.32 of 2019 by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur, District Jashpur whereby the learned Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs.9,20,500/- and directed the Insurance Company to make payment with interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of Tularam Kunte. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that on 30.11.2018, when deceased Tularam Kunte was returning home, the driver of the Tractor bearing registration No.C.G. 14 MH 4824, driving rashly and negligently, dashed against him. Consequently, he sustained injuries and succumbed during the course of treatment. He would contend that the age of the deceased was 36 years and earning Rs.12,000/- per month by working as a Mason. He would contend that the claimants are wife and children of the deceased, and respondents No.4 & 5 are 3 his parents. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly notional income of the deceased was Rs.4,500/- whereas, according to minimum wages matrix the wages payable to the semiskilled labourer in the month of November, 2018 was Rs.8,790/- and thus, the learned Tribunal has considered the notional income of the deceased at lower side. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has failed to award compensation towards loss of consortium to the children and parents of the deceased. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly. Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the learned Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company and fastened the liability upon the driver and owner of the vehicle on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving license on the date of accident. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunita and Others vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and Others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1464 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the award and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellants. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. He would contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection. 4 5. Learned Tribunal has framed a specific issue No.4 and held that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was being driven by the driver in absence of a valid driving license and that was the reason to exonerate the Insurance Company. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunita (supra) while dealing with a similar issue in paragraphs 13 to 16, 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 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 Kaur, (2004) 2 SCC 1. 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., (2020) 20 SCC 632 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 5 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 Thapar, (1998) 3 SCC 744; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C.M. Jaya, (2002) 2 SCC 278; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Upendra Rao, (2004) 8 SCC 517; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vimal Devi, 2010 SCC OnLine SC 49; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul, (2013) 2 SCC 41; Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh, (2017) 4 SCC 796; and Puttappa v. Rama Naik, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3496.” 6. Taking into consideration the facts of the case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the learned Tribunal ought to have directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the award and thereafter, recover the amount from the owner and driver of the vehicle. 7. With regard to next contention made by counsel for the appellants, learned Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month whereas, it has been concluded by the Tribunal that the deceased was a Mason. According to the minimum wages matrix applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh in the month of November, 2018, the admissible wages payable to a semiskilled labourer was Rs.8,790/-. The learned Tribunal further failed to award compensation for loss of consortium to the children and parents of the deceased accordingly the compensation requires recomputation and the same is revisited herein below: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 4,500 x12 = Rs. 54,000/- Rs. 8,790 x 12 = Rs. 1,05,480/- 2. Future Prospect 40% - 21,600/- 40% - 42,192/- (1,05,480 6 (54,000 + 21,600 = 75,600/-) + 42,192 = 1,47,672/-) 3. Deduction (-) 1/4th (18,900/-) (75,600 – 18,900 = 56,700/- (-) 1/4th (36,918/-) (Rs.1,47,672 - 36,918) = Rs. 1,10,754/- 4. Multiplier (x) 15 = Rs. (56,700 x 15 = 8,50,500/-) (x) 15 = Rs. (1,10,754 x 15 = 16,61,310/-) 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 48,000 x 4 = 1,92,000 + 40,000 = 2,32,000/- TOTAL Rs. 9,20,500/- Rs. 19,23,310/- 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.9,20,500/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.19,23,310/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.9,20,500/-, the appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.10,02,810/-. The Insurance Company shall first satisfy the award and shall be at liberty to recover the said amount from the owner and driver of the vehicle as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunita (supra). 9. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi