1 2025:CGHC:59985 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 193 of 2023 Gangaram Nagvanshi S/o Harchandra Nagvanshi Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Navdabri, P.S. And Tahsil Narharpur, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Appellant/Claimant versus 1 - Manoj Kumar Hanuman S/o Radhika Hanuman Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Chawand, Police Station Narharpur, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) (Driver) 2 - Gulab Sinha S/o Mohan Ram Sinha, R/o Village Chawand, Police Station Narharpur, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) (Owner) 3 - United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Bathena Chowk, Sinha Complex, Raipur Road, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) (Insurance Company) ... Respondent(s) HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.12.10 17:10:30 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Virendra Vaishnav, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Abhishek Nirala on behalf of Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 10.12.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/claimant challenging the impugned award dated 05/12/2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 17/2020, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 30,000/- for the injuries suffered by the appellant/claimant and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the owenr and driver of the offending vehicle. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit that Insurance Company may be directed to firstly pay the compensation amount to the appellant/claimant and thereafter, recover it from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle in view of the decision rendered by the 3 Supreme Court in the matter of Sunita and Others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.1. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 would support the impugned award and submit that the impugned award does not warrant any interference by this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. A careful perusal of the impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding in paraagraph 12 that the appellant/claimant was sitting as a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle and therefore, the Insurance Company would not be liable to pay the compensation amount. 6. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in the matter of Sunita (supra), have observed in paragraphs 14 and 15 qua the principle of ‘pay and recover’, as under :- “14. We must advert to the exposition of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur2. 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 1 2025 SCC Online SC 1464 2 (2004) 2 SCC 1 4 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.3, 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.” 7. Thus, in view of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Sunita (supra), the impugned award is modified and it is directed that respondent No. 3/Insurance Company would firstly pay the compensation to the appellant/claimant and thereafter, recover it fom the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet 3 (2020) 20 SCC 632