1 2025:CGHC:60934 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 41 of 2024 1. Dropati W/o Late Santosh Kumar Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Paurjhola (Dumardola), P.S. And Tahsil Mohala, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2. Ku. Sakshi D/o Late Santosh Kumar Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Dropati, R/o Village Paurjhola (Dumardola), P.S. And Tahsil Mohala, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3. Ku. Purvi D/o Late Santosh Kumar Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Dropati, R/o Village Paurjhola (Dumardola), P.S. And Tahsil Mohala, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4. Ramadheen S/o Alore Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Paurjhola (Dumardola), P.S. And Tahsil Mohala, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 5. Bimla Bai W/o Ramadheen Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Paurjhola (Dumardola), P.S. And Tahsil Mohala, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Homanchand Churendra S/o Kamta Prasad Churendra Aged About 22 Years R/o Rengakathera, P.S. And Tahsil Mohala, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.(Driver) 2. Kamta Prasad Churendra S/o Shri Kedarnath Churendra Aged About 45 Years R/o Rengakathera, P.S. And Tahsil Mohala, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.(Owner) 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Near L I C Office, Station Road, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Swapnil Thawani, Adv. on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Adv. For Respondent No.1 & 2 : Mr. Khilendra Sahu, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Adv. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Adv. Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.12.16 10:45:18 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 15-12-2025 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/ claimants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 assailing the award passed by learned Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon in Claim Case No. 245/2021 dated 25.10.2023 whereby learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 17,71,500/- with interest @ 6% on account of death of Santosh Kumar. 2) Facts of the present case are that on 30.11.2019, the deceased Santosh Kumar was travelling as pillion rider along with one Mukesh Nishad on motorcycle. They were going towards Mohala and when they reached Babamaar Pahadi, the offending vehicle motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-08-AL-6330 coming from opposite direction, dashed them. In the accident, Santosh Kumar sustained grievous injuries and died. Claimants, who are the widow, two minor children and parents of the deceased moved claim application and pleaded that the deceased was aged 38 years and he used to earn Rs. 15,000/- per month. Learned Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and thereafter award impugned was passed. 3) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Tribunal erred in law in not awarding separate compensation towards loss of consortium to the parents of the deceased. He further submits that learned Tribunal has fastened the liability to pay the compensation with the driver and owner of offending vehicle only on the ground that at the time of accident, driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid 3 and effective driving license. He contends that in such circumstance, learned Tribunal should have applied the principle of ‘pay and recover’ as same has been enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shamanna and Another Versus Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others1. He prays to modify the award accordingly. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents submit that learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. They further submit that driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving license on the date of accident, therefore learned Tribunal rightly fastened the liability with the driver and owner. They contend that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6) Perusal of the record would show that learned Tribunal has treated the deceased to be an unskilled labourer and assessed the monthly income to be Rs. 8,500/-, which is in consonance with the minimum wage matrix applicable at the relevant time. However, learned Tribunal erred in law in not awarding separate compensation towards loss of consortium to the parents of the deceased. In view of the discussion made herein-above, parents of the deceased are held entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 48,000/- each i.e. total Rs. 96,000/- with interest of 6% per annum from the date of application till its realization. 1. AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 3726 4 7) It is also evident that learned Tribunal while deciding the Issue No. 4 categorically held that driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving license on the date of accident and fastened liability with the driver and owner of offending vehicle. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shamanna (supra) held that when driver of vehicle does not possess valid driving license, Insurer would be liable to pay compensation amount to claimants and recover the same from owner of the vehicle. Relevant paras 10 and 12 of the aforementioned judgment are reproduced herein-below :- 10. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Brij Mohan and others (2007) 7 SCC 56: (AIR 2007 SC 1971), the claimant was travelling in the trolley attached to tractor carrying earth to brick kiln. It was found that the tractor and the trolley were not used for "agricultural works", the only purpose for which the tractor was insured, when the claimant sustained the injuries. The Supreme Court though held that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation, however, invoked the power vested in the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in directing the insurance company to satisfy the award by paying compensation to the insured/claimant and realise the same from the owner of the tractor. 12. Since the reference to the larger bench in Parvathneni case 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 (AIR 2004 SC 1531) followed in Laxmi Narain Dhut (AIR 2007 SC 1563) 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 and Laxmi Narain Dhut 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 of the High Court 5 exonerating the insurance company from its liability and directing the claim-ants to recover the compensation from the owner of the vehicle is set aside and the award passed by the Tribunal is restored. 8) Accordingly, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 96,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its realization. In that view of the matter, the appeal is partly allowed. The Insurance Company is made liable to pay the additional amount to the claimants, however, it shall have the right to realize the said amount of compensation from respondents No. 1 and 2, driver and owner, respectively, in accordance with law. 9) No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a