1 2025:CGHC:52677 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1529 of 2019 Aditya Vardhan Tripathi S/o Late Shri Lakshmikant Tripathi Aged About 19 Years R/o Chairity Of Minshnariz, Mother Terresa Ashram, Shanti Nagar, Near Dashahara Maidan, Police Station Supela, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh … Appellant versus 1 - Ritesh Tiwari S/o Narad Tiwari Aged About 18 Years Caste Brahman (Driver Of The Vehicle Cd Delux No. Cg07/lb/5930 ) R/o Ward No. 26, Near Bhimrao Ambedkar Nagar, Birgaon, Police Station Urla District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Narad Tiwari S/o Narayan Prasad Tiwari Aged About 45 Years Caste Brahman (Current Purchase Of The Vehicle Cd Delux No. Cg07/lb/5930 ) R/o Ward No. 26, Near Bhimrao Ambedkar Nagar, Birgaon, Police Station Urla District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Rameshwar Prasad Tiwari S/o Narayan Prasad Tiwari Caste Brahmin R/o Khursipar Labour Colony, Jone - 3, Ward 35, Bhilai Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh (Registered Owner Of Vehicle Cd Delux No. Cg07/lb/5930 ), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Branch Manager United India Insurence Company Ltd. Paras Complex, Opposite Sbi, Near Gurudwara Station Road Durg Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Vehicle Cd Delux No. Cg07/lb/5930) Policy No. - 191581/31/11/02/0001995 Period - From 23/12/2011 To 22/12/2012, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate For Insurance Company For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : : Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. B. N. Nande, Advocate None though served Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 29/10/2025 1. The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement against award dated 23.02.2019 in Claim Case No. 130/2017 passed by learned II nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that on fateful date 12.02.2012 the motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG-07-LB-5930, was being driven by Respondent No.1 and the claimant was pillion rider. Due to the rash and negligent driving, the Respondent No.1 lost control and both fell down. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries on his back and spine. The injuries caused compression of the nerves in his waist region, leading to numbness in both his legs and became non- functional. Despite prolonged medical treatment, there was no improvement, therefore, both his legs had to be amputated. The claimant is an orphan, having lost his parents. The claimant on account of his disability, was compelled to discontinue his education and is unable to engage in any gainful employment. He is currently residing at Mother Teresa Ashram and is entirely dependent on the care and support provided by the institution. 3 3. The Claimant filed a claim case and claimed Rs. 42,00,000/- with interest. The respondents No.1 to 3 never participated in the claim case proceedings and they were proceeded ex parte. However, the Insurance company/respondent No.4 filed reply and denied claim averments and took a plea that accident took place on 12.02.2012 but report was lodged on 25.05.2015. Plea was also taken that the driver of the vehicle in question had no valid and effective license as it was being driven by a minor. 4. The learned Tribunal framed issues and examined witnesses and after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, granted Rs.8,30,678/- compensation to the claimant and fastened liability with respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation properly and awarded meager amount on conventional heads. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for future treatment. Loss of income is also not considered by the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal also failed to consider Future Prospect; thus, he would pray for enhancement. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr. (2025 INSC 1070) and Sunita and Others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1464. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submission made by counsel for the appellant and submit that the learned Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on respondents No. 1 to 3; thus, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4 9. In the present case, the claimant has lost both his legs on account of aforesaid accident. 10. The learned Tribunal examined Shobhraj Bajaj, who lodged the police report after three years of the incident. He stated that he was not an eyewitness to the accident. 11. Claimant (AW/1) deposed that due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by respondent No.1, he fell down on a stone and sustained serious injuries to his waist and backbone. Later on, infection developed in both legs leading to amputation. 12. Dr. Sarita Minz (AW/2), examined the claimant on 10.01.2013 and found that both his legs were not responding and had no sensation. Muscle power was very low. She stated that the claimant had been treated at Medical College, Raipur in the Orthopedic Department. His medical report D/10 mentions vertebral compression, paralysis in both limbs, and bladder involvement. 13. Dr. K.D. Tripathi (AW/3), examined the claimant on 01.11.2018 in the District Medical Board. He found bilateral lower limb amputation above knee with bladder and bowel involvement. The patient was catheterized. He assessed the disability at 95%. 14. Abdul Naem Khan (NAW/1), Administrative Officer of United India Insurance stated that the claimant was a pillion rider and does not come within the definition of third party. He also stated that the driver was driving the motorcycle in breach of policy conditions. 15. The learned Tribunal assessed notional income of the claimant at Rs. 36,000/- per annum, which appears to be on the lower side. It is a well- established principle of law that a minor child who suffers death or permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident cannot be treated as a non-earning individual for computing compensation merely because the child was not engaged in employment at the time of the accident. In such cases, compensation under the head of loss of income should 5 be calculated by adopting at least the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman as notified for the relevant period in the State where the cause of action arises. This principle was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Ors. ((2020) 4 SCC 413) and Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692). 16. In the judgment rendered in the matter of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle of granting “just and fair compensation” in motor accident cases, particularly where a child having suffered injury or passed away, the calculation of loss of income necessarily has to be made on the matrix of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the respective State at the relevant point of time. 17. In the present case, the appellant was 12 years old at the time of the accident. The prevailing minimum wages for skilled workers in Chhattisgarh in the year 2012 was Rs. 4,719/- per month. The claimant sustained grievous injuries resulting in amputation of his both legs. The disability certificate assessed by the Medical Board at 95%. However, considering the complete loss of both legs and the claimant's condition, this Court assesses the disability at 100%; thus, I am inclined to enhance the compensation on various heads in accordance with settled principles of law and the compensation is recalculated as under: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income 3000 x 12 = 36,000 4719 x 12 = 56,628 2. Future Prospect 0 40 % 56,628 + 31,711/- = 88339 3. Multiplier 15 = 5,40,000 18 x 88,339 = 15,90,114/- 4. Permanent Disability 95 % = 5,13,000/- 100 % = 15,90,114/- 6 5. Loss of Income/Future Earnings due to Disability 0 5,00,000/- 6. Medical expenses 2,49,678/- 2,49,678 /- 7. Future medical expenses 0 5,00,000/- 8. Special Diet and Transportation 18,000/- 1,00,000/- 9. Loss of Marriage Prospect 0 3,00,000/- 10 Loss of income during treatment 0 1,00,000/- 11 Pain and suffering 0 5,00,000/- 12 Loss of amenities 0 2,00,000/- 13. TOTAL Rs.8,30,678/- Rs. 40,39,792/- 18. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunita (supra) while dealing with the issue of ‘Liability Only Policy’ where no premium was paid to cover the driver, owner, or a gratuitous passenger travelling therein, held that the Insurance Company would be liable to indemnify the compensation amount to the claimant and thereafter recover the same from the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle. The relevant paragraphs No. 12 to 18 are reproduced herein below:- “12. “The next question which arises for our consideration is whether the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the compensation amount to the claimant-appellant and, thereafter, recover the same from the driver and owner of the vehicle. 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 7 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 duet 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 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. 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. 18. Therefore, in light of the attending facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal; and 8 recover the same only from the owner of the offending vehicle.” 19. Considering the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunita (supra), the Insurance Company is directed to indemnify the compensation amount and thereafter recover the same from the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle. 20. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the compensation of Rs. 8,30,678/- awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 40,39,792/-. Since, the learned Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 8,30,678/-, the final compensation come to at Rs.32,09,114/-. The appellant/claimant is entitled to get an additional amount of Rs.32,09,114/-; thus, the Insurance Company/Respondent No. 4 is directed to make payment of the total compensation with interest @ 7 % per annum to the claimant within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. All other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 21.The Insurance Company shall be at liberty to recover the compensation amount from the respondents No.1 to 3. 22. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim