1 MAC No. 1004 of 2022 & MAC No. 1034 of 2022 2025:CGHC:55663 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1004 of 2022  Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office 3rd Floor, Gurukripa Tower, Behind ICICI Bank, Vyapar Vihar, P.S. Tarbahar, Tehsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Insurer) --- Appellant versus 1.Mani Ram Yadav S/o Late Lorikram Yadav, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Sagar, Main Road P.S. Sakri, Tehisl Sakri, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) (Claimant). 2.Purushottam Pal S/o Manohar Pal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Udela Sakarra, P.S. Hirri, Tehsil Bilha, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) (Driver & Owner). --- Respondents For Appellant :-Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.11.17 11:25:59 +0530 2 MAC No. 1004 of 2022 & MAC No. 1034 of 2022 MAC No. 1034 of 2022 1.Maniram Yadav S/o Late Lorikram Yadav, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Sagar, Main Road, Police Station And Tahsil Sakri, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant Versus 1.Purushottam Pal S/o Manohar Pal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Udela Sakarra, Police Station Hirri, Tahsil Bilha, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh............(Owner And Driver Of Motorcycle No. C.G.-10-AV-4099). 2.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager, Branch Office, Third Floor, Gurukripa Tower, Behind I.C.I.C.I. Bank Vyapar Vihar, Police Station Tarbahar, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.................(Insurer Of Motorcycle No. C.G.-10-AV-4099). --- Respondents For Appellant :- Ms. P. Das, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 :- Ms. Deblina Maity, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 :- Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 14.11.2025 1.Since both these case have arisen out of the same impugned award, they have been clubbed 3 MAC No. 1004 of 2022 & MAC No. 1034 of 2022 together heard together and are being disposed off by this common judgment. 2.The present two appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) have been preferred by the Insurance Company as well as by the claimant challenging the impugned award dated 07.07.2022 passed by the 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 601/2021 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the claim application and awarded the compensation amount to the tune of ₹5,55,764/- along with interest to the claimant by fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company to first pay the compensation amount to the claimants and thereafter recover the same from the owner & driver of the offending vehicle. 3.Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, would submit that the driver did not have the valid license to drive the vehicle in question on the date and time of 4 MAC No. 1004 of 2022 & MAC No. 1034 of 2022 accident, meaning thereby, the vehicle was being plied in terms and condition of the insurance policy an, therefore, the Insurance Company should be exonerated from the liability to first pay the compensation to the claimants and thereafter recover the same to from the owner and driver. 4.Ms. P. Das, learned counsel for the claimant, would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the Insurance Company, and submit that the compensation amount is liable to be enhanced as deduction of 1/2 has wrongly been made by the Claims Tribunal which should be 1/3 and also under the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium less amount has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal which is liable to be enhanced. 5.Ms. Deblina Maity, learned counsel for the owner and driver, would submit that the owner and driver is not liable to pay the compensation amount. 5 MAC No. 1004 of 2022 & MAC No. 1034 of 2022 6.I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein- above and gone through the records precisely. 7.Since the driver did not have the valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle in question, in light of decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Others 1 the Claims Tribunal has rightly applied the principle of pay and recover by fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company. 8.However, since deceased Gulaba Bai was the wife of claimant Maniram Yadav, deduction of 1/3 should be applied in the present case in light of decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2. Furthermore, under the head of loss of estate, funeral expenses and consortium, the amount is liable to be enhanced. As such, the claimant will be entitled for the 1 (2004) 3 SCC 297 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 6 MAC No. 1004 of 2022 & MAC No. 1034 of 2022 following compensation as computed by this Court:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income ₹8,060 x 12 = 96,720/- ₹8,060 x 12 = 96,720/- 2. Future Prospect 10% = 9,672/-; Total income = 1,06,392/- 10% = 9,672/-; Total income = 1,06,392/- 2. Deduction ½ = 1,06,392- ₹ 53,196 = 53,196/- ₹ 1/3 = 1,06,392- ₹ 35464 = 70,928/- ₹ 3. Multiplier (x9) = 4,78,764/- ₹ 6,38,352/- ₹ 4. Loss of estate ₹16,500/- 18,000/- ₹ 5. Funeral expenses ₹16,500/- 18,000/- ₹ 6. Consortium ₹44,000/- 48,000/- ₹ Total ₹5,55,764/- ₹7,22,352/- 9.In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of 5 ₹ ,55,764/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to 7,22,352 ₹ /-. Hence, after deducting the amount of 5 ₹ ,55,764/-, the appellant is held to be entitled to an additional amount of 1 ₹ ,66,588/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of 7 MAC No. 1004 of 2022 & MAC No. 1034 of 2022 compensation shall carry interest @ 9% 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. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company MAC No.1004 of 2022 is dismissed and the appeal filed by the claimant MAC No.1034 of 2022 is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein above. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit