Page No.1 of 6 IN MAC-386-2022 2025:CGHC:42588 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 386 of 2022 [Arising out of award dt. 24.12.2021, passed in Claim Case No.49/2019 (Smt. Anita Singh and others v. Mohd. Faiyaz Ansari) by the 2nd Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramanujganj (CG)] 1 - Smt. Anita Singh W/o Late Jai Kumar Singh Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Dhouli P.S. Sanawal District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh Present Address Village Bhanoura P.S. Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 2 - Jyoti Raj Singh S/o Late Jai Kumar Singh Aged About 7 Years Appellant No. 2 Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Anita Singh W/o Late Jaikumar Singh, R/o Village Dhouli P.S. Sanawal District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh Present Address Village Bhanoura P.S. Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 3 - Aditya Raj Singh S/o Jai Kumar Singh Aged About 2 Years Appellant No. 3 Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Anita Singh W/o Late Jaikumar Singh, R/o Village Dhouli P.S. Sanawal District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh Present Address Village Bhanoura P.S. Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 4- Ramcharan Singh S/o Late Jeet Bandhan Singh aged about 54 years, R/o Village Dhouli P.S. Sanawal District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh Present Address Village Bhanoura P.S. Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants/ Claimants Versus 1 - Mohd. Faiyaz Ansari S/o Athar Husain Ansari Aged About 22 Years R/o Ward No. 2 P.S. Ranka District Garhwa (Jharkhand) Driver Of Offending Vehicle No. Pick Up No. J.H. 03 V 3353) (Driver) 2 - Hasamtullah Ansari S/o Raies Ansari Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Bandu, P.S. Ranka District Garhwa (Jharkhand), Owner Of Offending Vehicle No. Pick Up No. J.H. 03 V 3353) (Owner) SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 6 IN MAC-386-2022 3 - The Branch Manager Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office 4th Floor Hormeh Tower Seventh Club Road Seeramoti Chowk Kanka Ranchi (Jharkhand) Through Branch Manager Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Rama Trade Center 1st Floor Rajeev Plaza Near Old Bus Stand Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle No. Pick Up No. J.H. 03 V 3353) (Insurer) ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellants : Mr. A.K. Mishra, Advocate For Respondents No.1-2 : None though served. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anupum Dubey, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 25.08.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dt. 24.12.2021, passed in Claim Case No.49/2019 (Smt. Anita Singh v. Mohd. Faiyaz Ansari) by the 2nd Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramanujganj (CG), whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.43,94,239/- as compensation for the death of Jai Kumar Singh. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation under the head of ‘loss of consortium (for son)’ i.e. appellants No.02 & 03 herein. Furthermore, though the learned Claims Page No.3 of 6 IN MAC-386-2022 tribunal has held that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license on the date of accident and exonerated the insurance company (respondent No.03) from paying the compensation, but no direction with regard to pay and recover has been passed. As such, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced with the direction to firstly pay the entire amount of compensation by the insurance company (respondent No.03) and thereafter recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the Tribunal is justified in assessing the compensation on notional basis and the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. Further, no direction for pay and recovery is required to be passed under the facts and circumstances of the present case. As such, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 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. In the instant case, admittedly, though a sum of Rs.40,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal to the appellant No.1 as loss of spousal consortium, but no amount towards loss of consortium for the appellants No.02 & 03 has been awarded, whereas they are also entitled to get Rs.40,000/- each as filial consortium. Accordingly, the amount of Page No.4 of 6 IN MAC-386-2022 compensation of Rs.43,94,239/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.44,34,239/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.43,94,239/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.40,000/-. 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. 6. So far as the prays with regard to the direction of pay and recovery is concerned, in the present case, the learned Claims Tribunal has specifically recorded a finding that on the date of accident the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective license and, therefore, exonerated the respondent No.03-Insurance company and fastened the liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the respondents No.01 & 02. 7. In this regard, it would be appropriate to notice the decision of the Supreme Court in Shamanna and another v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others 1 whereby it has been held in Para-13 & 15 as under: “13. Since the reference to the larger Bench in Parvathneni case [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvathneni, (2009) 8 SCC 785 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 568 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 943] has been disposed of by keeping the questions of law open to be decided in an appropriate case, presently the decision in Swaran Singh case [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] followed in Laxmi Narain Dhut [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC 700 : (2007) 2 SCC 1 (2018) 9 SCC 650 Page No.5 of 6 IN MAC-386-2022 (Cri) 142] and other cases hold the field. The award passed by the Tribunal directing the insurance company to pay the compensation amount awarded to the claimants and thereafter, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in question, is in accordance with the judgment passed by this Court in Swaran Singh [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] and Laxmi Narain Dhut [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC 700 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 142] cases. While so, in our view, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the award passed by the Tribunal directing the first respondent to pay and recover from the owner of the vehicle. The impugned judgment [Shamanna v. Laxman, 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 6928] of the High Court exonerating the insurance company from its liability and directing the claimants to recover the compensation from the owner of the vehicle is set aside and the award passed by the Tribunal is restored. 14. So far as the recovery of the amount from the owner of the vehicle, the insurance company shall recover as held in the decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanjappan [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanjappan, (2004) 13 SCC 224 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 148] wherein this Court held that : (SCC p. 226, para 8) “8. … For the purpose of recovering the same from the insured, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the executing court concerned as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject-matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer.” 15. In the result, the impugned judgment [Shamanna v. Laxman, 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 6928] of the High Court insofar as enhancement of the compensation to Rs 4,94,700 is concerned is affirmed. Insofar as direction of the impugned judgment directing the appellant claimants to recover the compensation from the owner of the vehicle is concerned, is set aside and the appeal is partly allowed. The first respondent insurance company Page No.6 of 6 IN MAC-386-2022 shall pay the enhanced compensation to the appellant claimants along with the accrued interest and the insurance company shall recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. No costs.” 8. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the above principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court it would be expedient to direct the respondent No.03 – Insurance Company to firstly pay the entire amount of compensation along with interest to the claimant within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and, thereafter, recover it from respondents No.1 and 2 herein. It is ordered accordingly. Rest all the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if