1 2026:CGHC:20025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 860 of 2023 Anil Kumar Jaiswal S/o Rameshwar Jaiswal Aged About 48 Years Occupation - Vehicle Driver And Owner, R/o Village Khokhania, P.S. And Tehsil - Rajpur, District - Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. (Driver And Owner) (Non Applicant No. 1) ... Appellant versus 1 - Madhu Vishwakarma W/o Arjun Vishwakarma Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Khadgawan, Post Khadgawan, P.S. And Teshsil - Pratappur, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 2 - Arjun Vishwakarma S/o Sangal Vishwakarma Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Khadgawan, Post Khadgawan, P.S. And Teshsil - Pratappur, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Branch Manager, S.B.I. General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office- Pujari Chamber, Fourth Floor, Pachpedi Naka, Near Pujari Park, Dhamtari Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurance Company) (Non Applicant No. 3) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Pushkar Sinha along with 2 Shashikesh Yadav, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 & 2 For Respondent No. 3 : : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Advocate Mr. Utsav Mahishwar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 29/04/2026 1. Challenge in this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) is to an award dated 13.02.2023 passed in Claim Case No. 190/2021 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District –Sarguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.). 2. By the award impugned, against a claim of Rs. 24,800/-, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 10,88,400/- in favour of respondent no. 1 and 2/claimants on account of death of their son Rahul Vishwakarma in an accident that took place on 04.07.2021 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. CG-15-CZ-0390 driven and owned by appellant and insured with respondent no. 3. 3. As per pleadings of the claim application filed under Section 166 of MV Act, the deceased being sitting as a Khalasi in the offending vehicle was going to Ambikapur from Village Khokhaniya after loading bricks from the brick kiln. The appellant drove the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and dashed it to the 3 nearby tree as a result of which the deceased sitting behind him as a Khalasi sustained severe injuries in person and was admitted in Rajarani Memorial Hospital, Ambikapur where he succumbed to injuries at about 5 pm. The accident was reported in Police Station- Gandhinagar upon which under Crime No. 434/2021 the investigation was carried out. As per further pleading, the deceased was aged about 21 years and was working as a Khalasi (conductor) earning Rs. 9500/- per month. Thus, the above stated compensation was claimed. 4. The claim application was denied by the appellant as well as respondent no. 3. The respondent no. 3 took a plea that driving of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license. The deceased was traveling as a gratuitous passenger, no premium for covering the risk of coolie or conductor was charged by the insurance company. There is a violation of fitness and permit of the offending vehicle. Thus, there is a violation of conditions of the insurance policy. 5. The claims tribunal framed issues and decided the same barring issue no. 5 wherein the learned claims tribunal held that there is a violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. However, the claims tribunal held that no premium for covering the risk of Khalasi was paid by the owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that sitting capacity of the offending vehicle was more than 1 excluding the 4 driver. The deceased was the khalasi and as per the sitting capacity the khalasi would be covered. Apart from this he submits that exoneration of the insurance company from payment of compensation is bad in law and liable to be set aside. Lastly, he submits that in the event if the appeal is dismissed, the order of pay and recover shall be passed. 7. Learned counsel for the insurance company opposing the submission of the counsel for the appellant submits that just compensation has been awarded. 8. Learned counsel for the insurance company supports the impugned award and submits that there is no risk of the deceased in the insurance company and the insurance company has been rightly exonerated from payment of compensation. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. First contention of the counsel for the appellant is that there is a sitting capacity, thus insurance company should be held liable. 11. As per pleadings of the claim application and case of the claimants, the deceased was a khalasi in the said vehicle. Perusal of the policy as exhibited by the insurance company and a witness was also examined stating that no premium was charged covering the risk of khalasi (conductor), coolie by the insurance company. The perusal of the policy exhibit spells out the same. On the basis of above evidence, the learned tribunal in para 19 discuss the evidence in detail and held that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. As no premium was charged to 5 cover the risk of khalasi (conductor), the finding of the learned claims tribunal with regard to exoneration of the insurance company cannot be said to be perverse and contrary to law. Thus, the contention of Shri Pushkar Sinha is repelled and the finding of the claims tribunal in this regard is upheld. 12. Next submission of Shri Pushkar Sinha is that exaggerated compensation has been awarded. The deceased was said to be aged about 21 years, tribunal found his monthly income to be Rs. 7000/- per month and after adding 40% towards future prospect and after deducting 1/3 expenditure and applying multiplier of 18 and further awarding compensation in all other admissible heads, the compensation of Rs. 1,08,840/- was awarded. Looking to the date of accident, age of deceased and minimum wages prevailing at that time, the assessment of income on computation of compensation by the learned claims tribunal is based on proper appreciation of evidence. The compensation awarded by the learned claims tribunal cannot be said to be exaggerated. Thus, this contention of counsel for the appellant is also rejected. 13. Last contention of Shri Sinha is that doctrine of pay and recover may be applied. It is not an appeal by the claimants or the insurance company. The owner has come up before this court for shifting the liability to pay the compensation upon the insurance company. If he takes the plea of applying doctrine of pay and recover, first he has to accept that there is a violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. As he has not accepted the 6 same, at the instance of the appellant who is the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, this Court is not inclined to pass an order of pay and recover. Hence this last contention is also rejected. 14. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby rejected. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Madhurima