1 2025:CGHC:52435 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 812 of 2021 1 - Smt. Reena Bai Sahu W/o Late Santuram Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 09, Shankar Nagar Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku Priyanka Sahu D/o Late Santuram Sahu Aged About 8 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Reena Bai Sahu, R/o. Ward No. 09, Shankar Nagar Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Preeti Sahu D/o Late Santuram Sahu Aged About 10 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Reena Bai Sahu, R/o. Ward No. 09, Shankar Nagar Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ku. Yogeshwari Sahu D/o Late Santuram Sahu Aged About 14 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Reena Bai Sahu, R/o. Ward No. 09, Shankar Nagar Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 5 - Ku. Gayatri Sahu D/o Late Santuram Sahu Aged About 16 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Reena Bai Sahu, R/o. Ward No. 09, Shankar Nagar Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 6 - Manoj Kumar Sahu S/o Late Khorbahara Ram Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o. Ward No. 09, Shankar Nagar Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 7 - Vishram Sahu S/o Late Khorbahara Ram Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o. Ward No. 09, Shankar Nagar Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus NIRMALA RAO 2 1 - Hori Lal Sahu S/o Mangaldas Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Kutul Board, Bhatha Gaon, P.S. Lalbag, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Driver And Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G. 08 Ag2570) 2 - Branch Manager Ifco Tokyo General Insurance Companuy, 3rd Floor, 34-347, Lal Ganga Shopping Mall, G.E. Road Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle No. C.G. 08 Ag 2570) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : None appeared though served. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 28/10/2025 1. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of compensation against the award passed by the learned Eighth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 576/2019 dated 24.09.2021, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs.4,26,410/- with interest @ 7% per annum on account of death of one Lalita Bai and fastened the liability with respondent No.1/driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would argue that that on 31.08.2019 deceased- Lalita Bai was travelling on a motorcycle alongwith her nephew (respondent No.1) as a pillion rider. When they reached near Pulgaon Chowk, near Dhaba, the motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-08A-2570 was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1, dashed the motorbike of the 3 deceased, as a result the deceased fell down from motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries, ultimately she died on 4.9.2019. He would submit that the claimants, who are daughter-in-law, grand daughters and two sons of the deceased, filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming therein compensation of Rs.33,20,000/-. Learned counsel would further submit that at the time of accident, the deceased was 65 years of age and was working in a hotel, earning Rs.15,000/- per month. However, the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed her notional monthly income Rs.3,000/-, contrary to the minimum wages payable to an unskilled labour in the State of Chhattisgarh. He would submit that at the relevant time, the minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labour in the State of Chhattisgarh was Rs.8,400/-. He would further submit that under other heads, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded inadequate compensation. He would further contend that the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have directed the Insurance Company to indemnify the compensation amount and thereafter recover the same from driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle. He would pray to enhance the compensation. 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 Co. Ltd. and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1464. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/ Insurance Company would oppose. He would submit that the liability has been fastened with respondent No.1/driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle and the learned Claims Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. He would contend that the deceased was not a 4 third party, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company and fastened the liability with respondent No.1. He would submit that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the learned Claims Tribunal. 5. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.1/driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle. 6. The deceased was a pillion rider on the offending motorcycle, which was being driven by respondent No.1. The offending vehicle was insured with respondent No. 2. The offending vehicle was protected with ‘Liability Only Policy’ and no premium was paid to cover the risk of driver, owner or pillion rider. 7. The learned Claims Tribunal has considered the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-. It is not in dispute that the minimum wages payable to an unskilled labour in the month of August, 2019 was Rs.8,400/- and thus, in my considered opinion, the learned Claims Tribunal assessed the notional monthly income of the deceased at lower side, therefore, it requires re-consideration and on other conventional heads, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. 8. 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 5 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 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. 6 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 recover the same only from the owner of the offending vehicle.” 9. 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 driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle. 10. Regarding monthly income of the deceased, the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed notional monthly income at lower side, therefore, the compensation requires re-computation and same is being done herein below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income as per minimum wages Rs.3,000/- per month Rs.8,400/- per month 2. Annual Income of the deceased Rs.3,000/- x 12 Rs.36,000/- 8,400/- x 12 Rs.1,00,800/- 3. Deduction of 1/4th ---- Rs.1,00,800 – 25,200 = Rs.75,600/- 4. Multiplier of 7 Rs.36,000/- x 7 = Rs.2,52,000/- Rs.75,600/- x 7 = Rs.5,29,200/- 5. Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500/- Rs.16,500/- 6. Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/- Rs.16,500/- 7. Loss Consortium to Claimants Rs.44,000/- Rs.44,000/- 8. Medical Expenses Rs.97,410/- Rs.97,410/- Total : Rs.4,26,410/- Rs.7,03,610/- 7 11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.4,26,410/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.7,03,610/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.4,26,410/-, the appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.2,77,200/-. The Insurance Company/respondent No. 2 is directed to make payment of compensation to the claimants within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and they would be at liberty to recover it from respondent No.1/driver-cum- owner of the offending vehicle. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the impugned award to the above extent. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi