(MAC No.655/2023) 2025:CGHC:53371 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 655 of 2023 {Arising out of award dated 30-1-2023 passed by the 11th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Motor Accident Claim Case No.314/2018} 1. Smt. Leela Pal, Wd/o Late Shri Ganesh Pal, presently aged about 46 years, 2. Sarju Pal, S/o Late Shri Ganesh Pal, presently aged about 28 years. Both R/o 93, Ward No.6, Kalamat Para Biladi, Tilda Nevra, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (wife and son of the deceased) (Applicants) ... Appellants versus 1. Shyam Lal Banjare, S/o Shri Vishal Banjare, Presently aged about 38 years, R/o Behind Nagarpalika Garden, Ward No.13, Nevra, P.S. Nevra, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver of offending vehicle truck bearing registration No.CG-04/ZC-4046) 2. M/s Agrawal Oil Extraction Limited, Through Director Amit Agrawal, R/o Village Tulsi, Post Nevra, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner of offending vehicle truck bearing registration No.CG-04/ZC-4046) 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Bhatapara, Registered Office :- In front of Church, Shankar Ward, Main Road, Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Insurance company of the offending vehicle truck bearing registration No.CG-04/ZC-4046) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Manikpuri and Mr. Salil Sahu, Advocates. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.11.01 17:03:58 +0530 (MAC No.655/2023) Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 31/10/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants herein/claimants seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation as well as to fasten the liability upon the Insurance Company, challenging the impugned award dated 30-1-2023 passed by the 11th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Motor Accident Claim Case No.314/2018, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of ₹ 11,80,200/- as compensation for the death of deceased Ganesh Pal, aged about 44 years at the time of incident. The appellants herein/claimants are wife and son of the deceased. 2. Mr. Salil Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants herein/claimants, would submit that the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Anu Bhanvara and others v. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and others1 would apply in case of gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle and the principle of pay and recover would also apply. Secondly, learned counsel would submit that just and proper compensation has not been awarded as the deceased was working as Hamal and as such, his monthly income should be taken as ₹ 9,230/-, whereas the Claims Tribunal has taken the same to be ₹ 7,930/-, therefore, the compensation be suitably enhanced by applying the principle of pay and recover. 1 (2020) 20 SCC 632 (MAC No.655/2023) 3. Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company/respondent No.3 herein would oppose the appeal and support the impugned award. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. The Claims Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding that the deceased was working as Hamal and was a gratuitous passenger. The Claims Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased to be ₹ 7,930/-, whereas it ought to have been taken as ₹ 9,230/- as per minimum wages. 6. Thus, considering the evidence available on record and that the deceased was working as Hamal and was a gratuitous passenger, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi2, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors3 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 4 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:- S. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court/New Calculation 1. Income ₹ 7,930/- x 12 = ₹ 95,160/- (Yearly Income) ₹ 9,230 x 12 = ₹ 1,10,760/- (Yearly Income) 2. Future (+) 25% i.e. ₹ 23,790; (+) 25% i.e. ₹ 27,690 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 3 (2009) 6 SCC 121 4 (2018) 18 SCC 130 (MAC No.655/2023) Prospect total monthly income = ₹ 95,160 + 23,790 = ₹ 1,18,950/- total yearly income = ₹ 1,10,760 + 27,690 = ₹ 1,38,450/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 = ₹ 39,650/- ₹ 1,18,950 – 39,650 = ₹ 79,300/- (-) 1/3 = ₹ 46,150/- ₹ 1,38,450 – 46,150 = ₹ 92,300/- 4. Multiplier (x) 14 = ₹ 11,10,200/- (x) 14 = ₹ 12,92,200/- 5. Loss of Estate ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 16,500/- 6. Funeral Expenses ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 16,500/- 7. Loss of Consortium ₹ 40,000/- x 1 = ₹ 40,000/- ₹ 44,000/- x 2 = ₹ 88,000/- Total ₹ 11,80,200/- ₹ 14,13,200/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹ 11,80,200/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹ 14,13,200/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹ 11,80,200/- the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of ₹ 2,33,000/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 8-5-2018 till its realisation. 8. Now, the question is, whether the principle of pay and recover would apply? 9. In this regard, the decision of the Supreme Court in Anu Bhanvara (supra) is required to be noticed herein profitably in which the Supreme Court in case of gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle duly insured has dealt with the question whether payment of compensation is to be made jointly by owner and driver of vehicle, or by insurer, which could thereafter be recovered by insurer from owner and driver, and it has been held as under: - (MAC No.655/2023) “9. The next question is as to which of the respondents, that is, the owner and driver, or the insurer of the vehicle, would be liable for payment of such compensation. As regard the liability for payment of compensation, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that since the vehicle was admittedly insured with Respondent 1 insurance company, the principle of pay and recover would be invoked even in case of a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle. The insurance company should thus be made liable for the payment of compensation to the appellants and in turn they would have the right to realise/recover the same from the owner and driver of the vehicle. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the following decisions of this Court, namely, Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh5, Puttappa v. Rama Naik6; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul7; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vimal Devi8; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Upendra Rao9; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C.M. Jaya10 and Amrit Lal Sood v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar11. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company has contended that since the claimants were gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle, in which case the liability for payment of compensation for death or bodily injury to the passengers of such goods vehicle would not be covered, hence the principle of pay and recover would not apply. It has thus been contended that the order of the High Court is perfectly justified in law and calls for no interference by this Court. In support of her submission, the learned counsel has relied on following decisions, namely, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani12; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur13; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kaushalaya Devi14; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rattani15; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prema Devi16; Bharati AXA 5 (2017) 4 SCC 796 : (2017) 2 SCC (Civ) 710 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 492 6 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3496 7 (2013) 2 SCC 41 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 968 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 812 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 399 8 2010 SCC OnLine SC 49 9 (2004) 8 SCC 517 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 357 10 (2002) 2 SCC 278 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 325 11 (1998) 3 SCC 744 12 (2003) 2 SCC 223 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 493 13 (2004) 2 SCC 1 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 370 14 (2008) 8 SCC 246 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 467 15 (2009) 2 SCC 75 : (2009) 1 SCC (Civ) 398 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 669 16 (2008) 5 SCC 403 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 627 (MAC No.655/2023) General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Aandi17 and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lal Singh18. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the various decisions cited by the learned counsel for the parties. The insurance of the vehicle, though as a goods vehicle, is not disputed by the parties. The claimants in the present case are young children who have suffered permanent disability on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. Thus, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the principle of “pay and recover” should be directed to be invoked in the present case.” 10. Coming to the facts of the present case, the Supreme Court in Anu Bhanvara (supra) has clearly held that the principle of “pay and recover” is required to be invoked in case of gratuitous passengers also in a goods vehicle. 11. In that view of the matter, the respondent Insurance Company is directed to firstly pay the entire amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court along with interest within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, recover the same from respondents No.1 & 2 – driver & owner, respectively, 50% each. 12. 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 Soma 17 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 13295 : 2019 ACJ 1975 18 2015 SCC OnLine Del 7508