1 2026:CGHC:5068 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1389 of 2018 1 - Branch Manager National Insurance Company Limited National Insurance Company Limited, Address- Bhutani Complex, G.E. Road Power House Bhilai District- Durg, Chhattisgarh....(Insurence Company Of Vehicle Motore Cycle No. C.G./07/a.M./9950), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Pinki Ramteke W/o Late Santosh Ramteke Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Charoda Ganesh Nagar, District- Durg Tehsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Kusum Ramteke W/o Beni Ramteke Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Charoda Ganesh Nagar, District- Durg Tehsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Riya Ramteke D/o Late Santoshi Ramteke Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Guardian Mother Res. No. 01 Smt. Pinki Ramteke, R/o Village Charoda Ganesh Nagar, District- Durg Tehsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 4 - Ku. Priya Ramteke D/o Late Santosh Ramteke Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Guardian Mother Res. No. 01 Smt. Pinki Ramteke, R/o Village Charoda Ganesh Nagar, District- Durg Tehsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Yash Ramteke S/o Late Santosh Ramteke Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Guardian Mother Res. No. 01 Smt. Pinki Ramteke, R/o Village Charoda Ganesh Nagar, District- Durg Tehsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Love Kumar S/o Surendra Prasad Aged About 27 Years Resident- Shivaji Chowk, B.M.Y. Charoda, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh......(Driver Of Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C.G./07/a.M./9950)......(Driver), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Lallan Kumar Rajak S/o Mangal Rajak Aged About 25 Years Resident- Shivaji Chowk, B.M.Y. Charoda District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.....(Owner Of Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C.G./07/a.M./9950).....(Owner), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 5 : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate. For Respondents No. 6 to 7 : None. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 3 29/01/2026 1. The present is Insurance Company’s appeal assailing the award dated 17.5.2018 passed by the learned 3rd Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 274/2017, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,78,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum in favour of claimants/respondents No. 1 to 5 herein. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 06.08.2016 at about 11:00 P.M., the deceased Santosh was travelling as a pillion rider on motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G.07/AM/9950, which was being driven by Respondent No. 6, Love Kumar, and Respondent No. 7 was also travelling as another pillion rider, thereby carrying three persons on the said motorcycle, and due to a collision with a stationary motorcycle, Santosh sustained serious injuries. After the said accident, an FIR was lodged with a delay of more than four months on 23.12.2016, and Santosh succumbed to his injuries on 14.08.2016, i.e., eight days after the accident. At the time of the accident, three persons were travelling on the motorcycle in violation of Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which was duly admitted by Respondent No. 7, Lallan Kumar, in his statements before the Tribunal, wherein he stated that all three were under the influence of alcohol and were riding together on a vehicle meant for only two persons. The Tribunal assessed the age of the deceased as 34 years on the basis of the postmortem report, however, the Aadhaar card and marksheet on record ought 4 to have been considered. As per the insurance policy (Exhibit D-2), the offending vehicle was insured in the name of Mukhaligam Guruvelli for the period from 05.04.2016 to 04.04.2017, but he was not impleaded as a party despite being a necessary party, and therefore, in his absence, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed. Further, the contract of insurance was with the said insured person, and not with Respondent No. 7, Lallan Kumar, who, as per the registration certificate (Exhibit D-1), was the owner of the vehicle and had no insurance policy in his name, and hence the appellant insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. Respondent No. 7 also remained ex parte before the Tribunal and did not file his written statement, though he was examined as a witness by the insurance company and admitted that the vehicle was registered in his name and was being driven by Love Kumar at the time of the accident. Since the deceased was not a third party and there was no valid insurance policy in the name of Respondent No. 7 on the date of accident, the insurance company cannot be held liable under Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The insurance company examined its officer Balkrishna, the driver Love Kumar, and witness Lallan Kumar in support of its case. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded excessive compensation without proper basis, as no documentary proof of income was produced and income was wrongly assessed at Rs. 5,000/- per month. Moreover, as per the postmortem report, the cause of death was 5 heart failure and not directly attributable to the motor accident, and therefore, in the absence of clear establishment of causation, the award passed by the Tribunal is erroneous and liable to be reconsidered. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that, firstly, as per the insurance policy (Exhibit D-2), the insured was Mukhalingam, who has not been impleaded as a party in the present case, whereas as per the RC document (Exhibit D-1), the owner is Lallan Kumar Rajak, who has been impleaded as respondent No. 7, and in view of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it was mandatory to implead the insured for fastening liability upon the insurance company, which was not done. Further, the insurance witness Yashpal, in paragraph 2 of his statement, clearly deposed that in case any compensation liability arises, the same shall be borne by non-applicants No. 1 and 2 due to violation of policy conditions, and therefore, in light of paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 of the appeal memo and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rikhiram v. Sukhraniya (2003 ACJ 534 / 2003 (3) SCC 97, decided on 05.03.2003), at best an order of “pay and recover” could be passed in the absence of impleadment of the insured. Secondly, it was contended that as per the marksheet (Exhibit P-34), the age of the deceased Santosh was 37 years, yet the Tribunal wrongly applied a multiplier of 16 in paragraph 15 of the award, whereas the appropriate multiplier should have been 15, as reflected in Ground 6 No. 2.4 of the appeal memo. Thirdly, it was argued that as per the post-mortem report, the cause of death was heart failure, and therefore, on this ground also, as mentioned in Ground No. 2.7 of the appeal memo, the claim deserves to be dismissed. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rikhi Ram and others vs. Sukhrania and others, MANU/SC/0078/2003. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 5 submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,78,000/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably. 5. None for respondent Nos. 6 & 7 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence available on record, and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has rightly held the accident to be proved and the claimants to be entitled to compensation, as the injuries sustained in the accident ultimately resulted in the death of the deceased, and the plea regarding heart failure cannot be accepted in 7 isolation. However, it is also evident that there was violation of policy conditions, that the insured person was not impleaded, and that the vehicle was being driven in breach of statutory provisions. In such circumstances, following the settled principles of law and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the insurance company cannot be completely absolved of liability, and at best, the principle of “pay and recover” is applicable. Further, considering the age of the deceased and the material available on record, the multiplier and income assessed by the Tribunal do not call for substantial interference. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant/insurance company is disposed of by directing it to pay the awarded compensation to the claimants in the first instance and thereafter recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle in accordance with law, while the prayer for enhancement of compensation is rejected, and the award passed by the Tribunal is upheld with the aforesaid modification. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat