1 2025:CGHC:51696 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 613 of 2024 1 - Soniya Bai Satnami W/o Late Ramkrishna Satnami, Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Jhafal, P.S. Lormi, Tahsil - Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) 2 - Laxman Kumar S/o Late Ramkrishna Satnami Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Jhafal, P.S. Lormi, Tahsil - Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) 3 - Prem Chand S/o Late Ramkrishna Satnami Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Jhafal, P.S. Lormi, Tahsil - Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) 4 - Rajesh Tondon S/o Late Ramkrishna Satnami Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Soniya Bai Satnami R/o Village Jhafal, P.S. Lormi, Tahsil - Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) 5 - Dasmat Satnami S/o Ramkrishna Satnami Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Soniya Bai Satnami R/o Village Jhafal, P.S. Lormi, Tahsil - Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Appellants/Claimants Versus 1 - Vijay Tandon S/o Ramavtar Tandon Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Jhafal, P.S. Lormi, Tahsil - Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) 2 - H.D.F.C. Irgo General Insurance Co. Ltd Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Ward No. 30, 1st Floor Rani Laxmi Nagar, Rama Magneto And Near Indusand Bank, Vyapar Vihar Road, P.S. Tarbahar, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 For Respondent No. 1 : : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate None, though served Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 16/10/2025 1. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of compensation against the Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.10.17 18:04:07 +0530 2 award passed by the learned Ist Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 1602/2022 dated 03.02.2024, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs.18,35,720/- with interest @ 9% per annum on account of death of one Ramkrishna and fastened the liability with respondent No.1/driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle. 2. Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would argue that that on 08.09.2022 deceased- Ramkrishna and respondent No.1 were returning from Village Jhafal on motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-28/K-8891. He would contend that respondent No. 1 was driving the motorcycle rashly and negligently and consequently he lost balance and dashed the motorcycle against cement-pole. He would further contend that the deceased fell down from motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries, resultantly he died on 10.09.2022. He would submit that the claimants, who are widow and children of the deceased, filed claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming therein compensation of Rs.35,66,000/-. He would further submit that at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 45 years and he was a Mason, but the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed his notional monthly income Rs.9,540/- contrary to the minimum wages payable to skilled labour in the State of Chhattisgarh. He would submit that at the relevant time, the minimum wages admissible to skilled labour in the State of Chhattisgarh was Rs.10,970/-. He would further submit that on the other heads, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded adequate compensation. Mr. Singroul would further contend that the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have directed the Insurance Company to 3 indemnify the compensation amount and thereafter recover the same from driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle. He would pray to enhance the compensation. Mr. Singroul 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, Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, 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 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 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. The Insurance Company has examined Praveen Sijariya as NAW-2, who has proved these facts. 7. The learned Claims Tribunal has considered the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,540/-. It is not in dispute that the 4 minimum wages payable to skilled labour in the month of September, 2022 was Rs.10,970/- 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 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. 5 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 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:- 6 Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income as per minimum wages Rs.9,540/- per month Rs.10,970/- per month 2. Future prospect 25% Rs.2,385/- + Rs.9,540/- = Rs.11,925/- Rs.2,742 + 10,970 = Rs.13,712/- 3. Annual Income of the deceased Rs.11,925/- x 12 Rs.1,43,100/- 13,712/- x 12 Rs.1,64,544/- 4. Deduction of 1/4rd towards personal expenses Rs.1,43,100 – 28,620 = Rs.1,14,480/- per month Rs.1,64,544 – 41,136 = Rs.1,23,408/- per month 5. Multiplier of 14 Rs.1,14,480/- x 14 = Rs.16,02,720/- Rs.1,23,408/- x 14 = Rs.17,27,712/- 7. Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500/- Rs.16,500/- 8 Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/- Rs.16,500/- 9. Loss Consortium to Claimants Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- Total : Rs.18,35,720/- Rs.19,60,712/- 11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.18,35,720/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.19,60,712/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.18,35,720/-, the appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,24,992/-. 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 @ 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. 7 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 vatti