1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 639 of 2019 1 - Sukaru (Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 10-06-2025. 2 - Sukmati W/o Sukaru Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Mavalibhatha, Pujaripara, Tahsil Tokapal, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Bangoram Kashyap S/o Ayatu Ram Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Mavalibhatha, Pujaripara, Tahsil Tokapal, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Driver And Owner Of Offending Vehicle)., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - National Insurance Company Jagdalpur, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Vikas A. Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Shri B.N. Nande, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08.12.2025 1. The appellants/ claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against an award passed by the learned Motor Accident NIRMALA RAO 2 Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur, in Claim Case No.19 of 2017 whereby the learned Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs.4,58,400/- and directed the Insurance Company to make payment alongwith interest @ 9% per annum on account of death of Amar Singh. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that as held by the learned Tribunal, the deceased and other labourers were travelling in the cabin of the Tractor bearing registration No.C.G. 17 G-3012 and Trolley bearing registration No.C.G. 17 G-3122 on 12.12.2009. He would submit that due to rash and negligent driving of the offending Tractor, it turned turtle, and the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has fastened liability with the driver and owner of the vehicle/ respondent No.1 – Bangoram Kashyap on the ground that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and no premium was paid to cover the life of a labourer. He would further submit that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and the driver had valid and effective driving license, therefore, the learned Tribunal should have applied principle of pay and recover. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month and applied a multiplier of 17. He would contend that the learned Tribunal considered the age of the deceased to be 25 years and therefore, the proper multiplier should have been 18 instead of 17. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal has not granted compensation for loss of consortium to the parents. He would pray to allow this appeal accordingly. 3 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellants. They would submit that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Shri B.N. Nande, would submit that as the deceased was a labourer travelling in the cabin of the Tractor and no premium was paid to cover the life of a labourer, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly fastened liability with the driver cum owner of the offending vehicle. With regard to pay and recover, he would contend that as there was breach of policy, therefore, no such direction can be issued. With regard to enhancement, Shri B.N. Nande, would submit that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection. 5. With regard to enhancement of the compensation, the learned Tribunal considered the age of the deceased to be 25 years but applied a multiplier of 17. The correct multiplier for age group 15 to 25 is 18 and the learned Tribunal ought to have applied multiplier 18. Further, the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for loss of consortium to the claimants. As per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the claimants, who are parents of the deceased are entitled a sum of Rs.40,000/- each for loss of consortium with additional 20%. 4 6. With regard to prayer made by counsel for the appellants for pay and recover, 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 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 company would be liable to pay the compensation amount first and thereafter, recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. The relevant paragraphs 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 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 vehicle, as the premium was 5 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., (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.” 7. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in my opinion, the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal requires recomputation and same is revisited herein below: 6 Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs.3,000 x 12 = 36,000/- Rs.3,000 x 12 = 36,000/- 2. Future prospects 40% = Rs.36,000 + 14,400/- = Rs.50,400/- 40% = Rs.36,000 + 14,400/- = Rs.50,400/- 3. Deduction 50% = Rs.50,400 – 25,200 = Rs.25,200/- 50% = Rs.50,400 – 25,200 = Rs.25,200/- 5. Multiplier of 17 Rs.25,200 x 17 = Rs.4,28,400/- Rs.25,200 x 18 = Rs.4,53,600/- 7. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 8 Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 9. Loss of Consortium --- Rs.48,000 x 2 = 96,000/- Total : Rs.4,58,400/- Rs.5,79,600/- 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.4,58,400/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.5,79,600/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.4,58,400/-, the appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,21,200/-. 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 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 first and thereafter, recover it from the driver cum owner of the offending vehicle. 10. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi