1 MAC No. 261 of 2023 2025:CGHC:47560 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 261 of 2023  United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office Bramha Road, Near Ram Mandir, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh................Insurer. ... Appellant versus 1. Anita Paikra W/o Bihariram, Aged About 23 Years; 2. Astha Paikra D/o Bihariram, Aged About 3 Years; 3. Pumpi Paikra D/o Bihariram, Aged About 1 Year; Respondents No.2 & 3 are Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Anita Paikra; 4. Paramsundari Paikra W/o Hridaylal, Aged About 44 Years; 5. Hridaylal S/o Shivaram, Aged About 48 Years; Respondents No.1 to 5 are R/o Village Khutanpara, Dhandhapur Tahsil And District Balrampur (C.G.) Present Business Address Village Makanpur, Tahsil Pratappuran, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh............Claimants. 6. Ashok Gupta S/o Shri Bhola Gupta, R/o Village Bundiya, Post Bhatgaon, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.................Driver. 7. Sunil Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Shivpyare Gupta, R/o Village Ghatgaon Aara, Post Aas, Rajpur, Tahsil Rajpur, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh..................Owner. ... Respondents ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.09.18 18:09:43 +0530 2 MAC No. 261 of 2023 For Appellant :- Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 5 :- Mr. K.K. Prajapati, Advocate. For Respondent No.7 :- Mr. N.K. Sinha, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 16.09.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the impugned award dated 13.10.2022 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 61/2019, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has granted the claimants’ application and awarded compensation to the tune of 14,50,800/- ₹ along with interest for death of Bihariram by fastening the liability upon the appellant/Insurance Company to pay first and thereafter recover the same respondent No.2. 2. Mr. Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding the compensation to the claimants by fastening liability upon the Insurance Company. He would also submit that the direction of pay and recover is not sustainable and it ought to have exonerated. 3 MAC No. 261 of 2023 3. Mr. K.K. Prajapati, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents No.1 to 5, would support the order passed by the Claims Tribunal which is just and proper and the same is not called for interference. 4. Mr. N.K. Sinha, learned counsel for respondent No.7, would submit that the owner is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records precisely. 6. The Claims Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding that the vehicle did not have valid fitness certificate on the date and time of accident, therefore, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh v. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. 1 , the Claims Tribunal has rightly held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants first and, thereafter, entitled to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle, which, in my considered opinion, is correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and the same is neither perverse nor contrary to the records. 1 (2018) 7 SCC 558 4 MAC No. 261 of 2023 7. In view of the aforesaid observation/discussion, I do not find any merit in the instant appellant, it deserves to be and is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit