1 2026:CGHC:5509 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1602 of 2023 * - Hemoti Rathore W/o Late Premlal Rathore Aged About 72 Years R/o Village Ankori P.S. Basna, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant Versus 1 - Durga Prashad Pandey S/o Shyam Kumar Pandey R/o Village Gadfuljhar, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle) 2 - Dayanand Agrawal S/o Soram Agrawal R/o Village Gadfuljhar, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle) 3 - Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Shop No. 205, IInd Floor M.M. Silver Bhavan, Ring Road No. 01, Mahavir Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle) --- Respondents And MAC No. 1594 of 2023 * - Devki Nayak W/o Govind Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Ankori P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) (Claimant) ---Appellant Versus 1 - Durga Prashad Pandey S/o Shyam Kumar Pandey R/o Village Gadfuljhar, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) (Driver Of Vehicle) 2 - Dayanand Agrawal S/o Soram Agrawal R/o Village Gadfuljhar, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) (Owner Of Vehicle) 3 - Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Shop No. 205, 2nd Floor, M. M. Silver Bhavan, Ring Road No. 1, Mahavir Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Vehicle) --- Respondents And MAC No. 1603 of 2023 1 - Panka Nayak S/o Late Parsu Nayak Aged About 58 Years (Dead) R/o Village Ankori, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) (Claimant) Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.02.13 12:02:10 +0530 2 2 - Kirtan Rathore D/o Panka Rathore Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Ankori, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) (Claimant) 3 - Malikram Rathore S/o Panka Rathore Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Ankori, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) (Claimant) 4 - Ku. Padma Rathore D/o Panka Rathore Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Ankori, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) (Claimant) ---Appellants Versus 1 - Durga Prashad Pandey S/o Shyam Kumar Pandey R/o Village Gadfuljhar, P.S. Basna, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2 - Dayanand Agrawal S/o Soram Agrawal R/o Village Gadfuljhar, P.S. Basna, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited Shop No.205, 2nd Floor M.M. Silver Bhavan, Ring Road No.1, Mahavir Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondents And MAC No. 1605 of 2023 * - Sadobai W/o Boondram Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Ankori P.S. Basna, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 1 - Durga Prashad Pandey S/o Shyam Kumar Pandey R/o Village Gadfuljhar, P.S. Basna, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle) 2 - Dayanand Agrawal S/o Soram Agrawal R/o Village Gadfuljhar, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle) 3 - Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Shop No. 205, IInd Floor M.M. Silver Bhavan, Ring Road No. 01, Mahavir Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle) --- Respondents And MAC No. 1623 of 2023 * - Samari Nayak W/o Siyaram Nayak Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Ankori P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) (Claimant) ---Appellant Versus 1 - Durga Prashad Pandey S/o Shyam Kumar Pandey R/o Village Gadfuljhar, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) (Driver Of Vehicle) 2 - Dayanand Agrawal S/o Soram Agrawal R/o Village Gadfuljhar, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) (Owner Of Vehicle) 3 3 - Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Shop No. 205, 2nd Floor M.M. Silver Bhavan, Ring Road No. 1, Mahavir Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Vehicle) --- Respondents And MAC No. 1625 of 2023 * - Surubali Nayak W/o Bhuvaneshwar Nayak Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Ankori P. S Basna, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 1 - Durga Prashad Pandey S/o Shyam Kumar Pandey R/o Village Gadfuljhar, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgsarh (Driver Of Vehicle) 2 - Dayanand Agrawal S/o Soram Agrawal R/o Village Gadfuljhar, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgsarh (Owner Of Vehicle) 3 - Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Shop No. 205, I Ind Floor M. M. Silver Bhavan, Ring Road No. 1, Mahavir Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgsarh (Insurer Of Vehicle) --- Respondents And MAC No. 1626 of 2023 * - Smt. Ramsheela W/o Madanlal Nayak Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Ankori P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ---Appellant Versus 1 - Durga Prashad Pandey S/o Shyam Kumar Pandey R/o Village Gadfuljhar, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) (Driver Of Vehicle) 2 - Dayanand Agrawal S/o Soram Agrawal R/o Village Gadfuljhar, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) (Owner Of Vehicle) 3 - Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Shop No. 205, 2nd Floor M.M. Silver Bhavan, Ring Road No. 1, Mahavir Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Vehicle) --- Respondents And MAC No. 1627 of 2023 * - Hari Singh S/o. Rajaram, Aged About 44 Years R/o. Village Ankori P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant Versus 4 1 - Durga Prashad Pandey S/o. Shyam Kumar Padney, R/o Village Gadfuljhar, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle) 2 - Dayanand Agrawal S/o. Soram Agrawal, R/o Village Gadfuljhar, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle) 3 - Iffco Tokyo General Insurannce Co. Ltd., Shop No. 205, Iind Floor M.M. Silver Bhavan, Ring Road, No. 1, Mahavir Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle) --- Respondents And MAC No. 1628 of 2023 1 - Punitram Nayak S/o Late Narsingh Nayak Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Ankori P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.),...(Claimants) 2 - Tikelal Nayak S/o Narsingh Nayak Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Ankori P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ---Appellants Versus 1 - Durga Prashad Pandey S/o Shyam Kumar Pandey R/o Gadfuljhar P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.),...(Driver Of Vehicle) 2 - Dayanand Agrawal S/o Soram Agrawal R/o Village Gadfuljhar, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund, (C.G.) (Owner Of Vehicle) 3 - Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Shop No. 205, 2nd Floor M.M. Silver Bhavan, Ring Road No. 1, Mahavir Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Vehicle) --- Respondents And MAC No. 1630 of 2023 * - Siromoti Nayak W/o. Baliram Nayak Aged About 69 Years R/o Village Ankori P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) ---Appellant Versus 1 - Durga Prashad Pandey S/o Shyam Kumar Pandey, R/o Village Gadfuljhar, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).............(Driver Of Vehicle) 2 - Dayanand Agrawal S/o Soram Agrawal, R/o Village Gadfuljhar, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh)..........(Owner Of Vehicle) 3 - Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd., Shop No. 205, Iind Floor M.M. Silver Bhavan, Ring Road No. 1, Mahavir Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh).................(Insurer Of Vehicle) --- Respondents 5 And MAC No. 1634 of 2023 * - Yoshoda W/o. Late Karmulal Rathore, Aged About 69 Years R/o. Village- Ankori P.S. -Basna, District -Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) ---Appellant Versus 1 - Durga Prashad Pandey S/o. Shyam Kumar Pandey, R/o. Village - Gadfuljhar, P.S. Basna, District -Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle) 2 - Dayananad Agrawal, S/o. Soram Agrawal, R/o. Village -Gadfuljhar, P.S. Basna, District -Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle) 3 - Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd, Shop No.205, Iind Floor M.M. Silver Bhavan, Ring Road No.01, Mahavir Nagar, Raipur, Chattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle) --- Respondents And MAC No. 1635 of 2023 * - Sulendri Rauthore W/o. Ramesh Rauthore, Aged About 39 Years R/o. Village Ankori P.S. Basna, District -Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) ---Appellant Versus 1 - Durga Prashad Pandey S/o. Shyam Kumar Pandey, R/o. Village - Gadfuljhar, P.S. Basna, District -Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle) 2 - Dayanand Agrawal, S/o. Soram Agrawal, R/o. Village -Gadfuljhar, P.S. Basna, District -Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle) 3 - Iffo Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd, Shop No.205, Iind Floor M.M. Silver Bhavan, Ring Road No.01, Mahavir Nagar, Raipur, Chattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle) --- Respondents And MAC No. 1641 of 2023 1 - Anirudh Rathore S/o. Late Gowardham Rathore, Aged About 38 Years R/o. Village Ankori P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Abhimanyu Rathore S/o. Late Gowardhan Rathore, Aged About 55 Years R/o. Village Ankori P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) ---Appellants Versus 6 1 - Durga Prashad Pandey S/o. Shyam Kumar Pandey, R/o. Village Gadfuljhar, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh)..............(Driver Of Vehicle) 2 - Dayanand Agrawal S/o. Soram Agrawal, R/o Village Gadfuljhar, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh)............(Owner Of Vehicle) 3 - Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd., Shop No. 205, Iind Floor, M.M. Silver Bhavan, Ring Road No. 1, Mahavir Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh).............(Insurer Of Vehicle) --- Respondents And MAC No. 1644 of 2023 * - Hatbari Nayak W/o. Maniram Nayak Aged About 56 Years R/o. Village Ankori P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant Versus 1 - Durga Prashad Pandey S/o. Shyam Kumar Pandey, R/o. Village Gadfuljhar, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle) 2 - Dayanand Agrawal S/o. Soram Agrawal, R/o Village Gadfuljhar, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle) 3 - Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd., Shop No. 205, Iind Floor M.M Silver Bhavan, Ring Road No. 1, Mahavir Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle) --- Respondents And MAC No. 1670 of 2023 * - Murlidhar Rathore S/o. Late Nemicharan Rathore, Aged About 39 Years R/o. Village Ankori P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) ---Appellant Versus 1 - Durga Prashad Pandey S/o. Shyam Kumar Pandey, R/o. Village Gadfuljhar, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh)...........(Driver Of Vehicle) 2 - Dayanand Agrawal S/o. Soram Agrawal, R/o Village Gadfuljhar, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh).............(Owner Of Vehicle) 3 - Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd., Shop No. 205, IInd Floor M.M. Silver Bhavan, Ring Road No. 1, Mahavir Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)..............(Insurer Of Vehicle) --- Respondents And 7 MAC No. 267 of 2022 1 - Kunjlal Rathore S/o Shri Kanhaiya Rathore, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Aankori Tada, Thana And Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 2 - Narayan Rathore S/o Shri Kunjlal Rathore, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Aankori Tada, Thana And Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants Versus 1 - Durga Prasad Pandey S/o Shri Shyam Kumar Pandey, Caste Kumhar, R/o Garhfuljhar, Thana And Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Vehicle No. C.G. 06 GG 2234) 2 - Dayanand Agrawal S/o Shri Soram Agrwal, R/o Garhfuljhar, Thana And Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Vehicle No. C.G. 06 GG 2234) 3 - Ifco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited Shop No. 205, Second Floor M.M. Silver Bhavan, Ring Road No. 01, Mahavir Nagar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Vehicle No. C.G. 06 GG 2234) … Respondents For Respective Appellants / Claimants / Injured : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate along with Ms. Priyanka Bajpai, Advocate and Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Insurance Company : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate along with Ms. Shrejal Gupta, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 31/01/2026 1. These all appeals arise out of the same accident occurred on 16.01.2019 involving the same vehicle- Metador bearing registration No. CG-06 / GG-2234 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle Metador”). These appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. 8 2. MAC Nos. 1602/2023; 1594/2023; 1605/2023; 1623/2023; 1625/2025; 1626/2023; 1627/2023; 1628/2023; 1630/2023; 1634/2023; 1635/2023 & 1644/2023 have been filed by the claimants/injured for enhancement of compensation, whereas MAC Nos. 1603/2023; 1641/2023; 1670/2023 & 267/2022 have been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation on account of death of bread-earners. 3. The description of claim case numbers; parties name; amount awarded and Claims Tribunal are given below:- Claim Case No. Parties Name Amount Awarded by the learned Ist Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) dated 14.12.2021 Claim Case No. 17/2020 (MAC No. 1602 of 2023) Hemoti Rathore Vs. Durga Prashad Pandey & Others Rs.3,73,978/- Claim Case No. 6/2020 (MAC No. 1594 of 2023) Devki Nayak Vs. Durga Prashad Pandey & Others Rs.26,350/- Claim Case No. 12/2020 (MAC No. 1603 of 2023) Panka Nayak & Ors. Vs. Durga Prashad Pandey & Others Rs.3,59,684/- Claim Case No. 18/2020 (MAC No. 1605 of 2023) Sadobai Vs. Durga Prashad Pandey & Others Rs.94,950/- Claim Case No. 7/2020 (MAC No. 1623 Samari Nayak Vs. Rs.75,663/- 9 of 2023) Durga Prashad Pandey & Others Claim Case No. 19/2020 (MAC No. 1625 of 2023) Surubali Nayak Vs. Durga Prashad Pandey & Others Rs.40,500/- Claim Case No. 14/2020 (MAC No. 1626 of 2023) Smt. Ramsheela Vs. Durga Prashad Pandey & Others Rs.5,000/- Claim Case No. 20/2020 (MAC No. 1627 of 2023) Hari Singh Vs. Durga Prashad Pandey & Others Rs.5,75,000/- Claim Case No. 8/2020 (MAC No. 1628 of 2023) Punit Ram Nayak & Anr. Vs. Durga Prashad Pandey & Others Rs.5,75,000/- Claim Case No. 9/2020 (MAC No. 1630 of 2023) Siromoti Nayak Vs. Durga Prashad Pandey & Others Rs.36,355/- Claim Case No. 16/2020 (MAC No. 1634 of 2023) Yoshoda Vs. Durga Prashad Pandey & Others Rs.63,000/- Claim Case No. 15/2020 (MAC No. 1635 of 2023) Sulendri Rauthore Vs. Durga Prashad Pandey & Others Rs.3,90,148/- Claim Case No. 10/2020 (MAC No. 1641 of 2023) Anirudh Rathore & Anr. Vs. Durga Prashad Pandey & Others Rs.5,75,000/- 10 Claim Case No. 11/2020 (MAC No. 1644 of 2023) Hatbari Nayak Vs. Durga Prashad Pandey & Others Rs.45,050/- Claim Case No. 13/2020 (MAC No. 1670 of 2023) Murlidhar Rathore Vs. Durga Prashad Pandey & Others Rs.6,03,556/- Claim Case No. 03/2020 (MAC No. 267/2022 Kunjlal Rathore & Anr. Vs. Durg Prasad Pandey & Others Rs.3,77,300/- 4. The facts, in nutshell, are that on 16.01.2019 when the claimants and some other persons were returning their village in a Metador bearing registration No. CG-06 / GG-2234, it got turned turtle near Village Ghadphuljhar, Shahlejhariya Road on account of rash and negligent driving by its driver, resultantly the passengers sustained injuries. In said accident, some of the appellants sustained injuries, whereas Manglibai, Laalibai, Panni Bai, Ghasnin Rathore, Jamuna Bai and Punerwasi lost their lives. 5. Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Ms. Priyanka Bajpai and Mr. Rajendra Patel learned counsels appearing for the appellants/claimants/injured would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has not granted compensation keeping in mind the minimum wages matrix. They would contend that the learned Claims Tribunal assessed the income of the injured and deceased at lower side. It is also argued that on conventional heads, the learned Claims Tribunal has not granted compensation in accordance with law. They would fairly submit that the claimants and deceased persons were gratuitous passengers in goods carriage 11 vehicle and therefore liability has been fastened with the driver and owner of the offending vehicle Metador. It is argued that the Insurance Company could not establish the fact that the driver of offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence, therefore the learned Claims Tribunal should have applied principle of pay and recover. They have placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the matter of Anu Bhanvara and Others Vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and Others, reported in (2020) 20 SCC 632. They have also placed reliance on the recent judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunita & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. passed in Civil Appeal No. 9538 of 2025. They would pray for a direction to the Insurance Company to first indemnify the award and recover it from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle Metador. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta. He would submit that the claimants as well as deceased persons were gratuitous passengers in a goods carriage vehicle. He would further submit that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence. It is contended that as there was breach of policy conditions, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal rightly fastened liability with the driver and owner of the offending vehicle Metador and exonerated the Insurance Company. He has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani and others, AIR 2003 SC 607; National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur and other, (2004) 2 SCC 1; National Insurance 12 Com. Ltd. Vs. Bommithi Subbhayamma and others, (2005) 12 SCC 243 and judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Jabalpur Bench) passed in the matter of Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Habib Khan and Ors., 2025 (2) MPLJ 482. 7. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the records of the learned Claims Tribunal with utmost circumspection. 8. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle Metador. 9. In MAC No. 1602/2023, (arising out of Claim Case No. 17/2020), the claimant is Hemoti Rathore. She suffered amputation of her left leg which resulted in permanent disability to the extent of 60%. Her age at the time of accident was 70 years. It is not in dispute that the Member of Medical Board was not examined to prove the disability certificate Ex.P/30. The learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the claimant Rs.3,000/- per month; applied multiplier of 5 and assessed loss of earning to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/-. The learned Claims Tribunal further granted a sum of Rs.50,000/- for attendant; Rs. 23,978/- was awarded against the medical bills submitted by the claimant; Rs.10,000/- for conveyance; Rs.10,000/- for special diet and Rs.1,00,000/- for pain and suffering. Thus, the learned Claims Tribunal awarded in total sum of Rs.3,73,978/-. Perusal of the compensation granted by the learned Claims Tribunal would show that the learned Claims Tribunal assessed the income of the claimant Rs.3,000/- per month which is at lower side. The minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labour in the month of January, 2019 was Rs.8,140/- and the learned Claims Tribunal should have taken that figure while computing the compensation. On the 13 other heads, the learned Claims Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. Accordingly, the compensation requires reconsideration and same is being revisited as under:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income as per minimum wages Rs.3,000/- per month Rs.8,140/- per month 2. Annual Income Rs.3,000/- x 12= Rs.36,000/- Rs.8,140/- x 12= Rs.97680/- 3. Loss of earning capacity due to 60% physical & functional disability - Nil - Rs.58,608/- 4. Multiplier of 5 Rs.36,000/- x 5= Rs. 1,80,000/- Rs.58,608/- x 5= Rs.2,93,040/- 5. For loss of income Rs.180,000/- Rs.2,93,040/- 6. For attendant Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- 7. For medical expenses/bills Rs. 23,978/- Rs.23,978/- 8. For conveyance Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- 9. For special diet Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- 10. For pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- Total: Rs.3,73,978/- Rs.4,87,018/- 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.3,73,978/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.4,87,018/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.3,73,978/-, the appellant/claimant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,13,040/-. The Insurance Company shall indemnify the compensation first and recover it from owner and driver of offending vehicle. 14 11. In MAC No. 1594/2023, (arising out of Claim Case No. 6/2020), the claimant is Devki Nayak. In the accident she sustained simple injuries. The learned Claims Tribunal assessed her monthly income Rs.5,000/- which appears to be at lower side. Looking to the minimum wages matrix, the minimum wage admissible to an unskilled labour in the month of January, 2019 was Rs.8,140/- and the learned Claims Tribunal should have taken that figure while computing the compensation. The learned Claims Tribunal has granted compensation for loss of earning for 02 month Rs.10,000/- which requires reconsideration. On the other heads, the learned Claims Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. Accordingly, the compensation requires reconsideration and same is being revisited as under:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income as per minimum wages Rs.5,000/- per month Rs.8,140/- per month 2. Loss of income for 02 months Rs.10,000/- Rs.16,280/- 3. For attendant Rs.4,000/- Rs.4,000/- 4. For medical expenses Rs.1,350 Rs.1,350/- 5. For conveyance Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- 6. For special diet Rs.2,000/- Rs.2,000/- 7. For pain and suffering Rs.4,000/- Rs.4,000/- Total : Rs.26,350/- Rs.32,630/- 12. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of 15 Rs.26,350/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.32,630/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.26,350/-, the appellant/claimant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.6,280/-. The Insurance Company shall indemnify the compensation first and recover it from owner of offending vehicle. 13. MAC No. 1603/2023 , (arising out of Claim Case No. 12/2020), is a death case, where one Panka Nayak lost her life during course of treatment. The claimants who are 02 major sons and one major daughter of deceased- Panka Nayak filed claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein they pleaded that at the time of death, age of the deceased was 50 years and earning Rs.10,000/- working as tailor. They pleaded that they were dependent on the income of the deceased. The learned Claims Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased Rs.4,500/- per month. Further granted 10% compensation for future prospects, applied multiplier of 9 and deducted 1/2 for personal and living expenses of the deceased. 14. Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal should have treated the deceased an unskilled labourer and ought to have applied minimum wages matrix to compute the income part. He would contend that as the number of dependents are 03, the learned Claims Tribunal should have deducted 1/3rd for personal and living expenses of the deceased. He would submit that for loss of filial consortium, the learned Claims Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.40,000/- to one of the claimants, out of 03. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly. 15. On the other hand, Mr. Vaibhav Shukla would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. He would 16 submit that the claimants are major sons and a daughter and they failed to prove income of the deceased. He would contend the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Claim Case No. 12/2020 with utmost circumspection. 17. Admittedly, the claimants are major sons and a daughter of the deceased. They specifically pleaded that they were dependent on the income of the deceased. The Insurance Company could not lead evidence to prove contrary. The learned Claims Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased Rs.4,500/- per month which is at lower side. In absence of evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal should have applied minimum wages matrix. The minimum wage admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of January, 2019 was Rs.8,140/- and the learned Claims Tribunal should have taken that figure while computing the compensation. Further the learned Claims Tribunal has not applied correct deduction i.e. 1/3rd as member of the dependents are 03. Further the learned Claims Tribunal committed error in grant of compensation for loss of filial consortium. Thus, compensation requires reconsideration and same is being revisited herein below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income as per minimum wages Rs.4,500/- Rs.8,140/- 2. Future prospects @ 10% Rs.450/- + Rs.4,500/- Rs.4,950/- Rs.814/- + Rs.8,140/-= Rs.8,954/- 3. Deduction of 1/2 towards personal and living expenses Rs.4,950/- - Rs.2,475/-= Rs.2,475/- Deduction 1/3rd Rs.8,954/- - Rs.2,984/-= Rs.5,970/- 17 4. Per month income of the deceased Rs.2,475/- Rs.5,970/- 5. Annual income of the deceased Rs.2475/- x 12= Rs.29,700/- Rs.5,970/- x 12= Rs.71,640/- 6. Multiplier of 9 Rs.29,700/- x 9 = Rs.267,300/- Rs.71,640/-/- x 9 = Rs.6,44,760/- 7. Medical expenses & bills Rs.14,384/- Rs.14,384/- 8. For attendant Rs.8,000/- Rs.8,000/- 9. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 10. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 11. Loss of filial consortium Rs.40,000/- Rs.1,20,000/- Total : Rs.3,59,684/- Rs.8,17,144/- 18. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.3,59,684/-/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.8,17,144/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.3,59,684/-, the appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.4,57,460/-. The Insurance Company shall indemnify the compensation first and recover it from owner of the offending vehicle. 19. In MAC No. 1605/2023, (arising out of Claim Case No. 18/2020), the claimant is Sadobai. In the accident, she sustained simple injuries. In this case, claimant failed to prove the injuries sustained by her by examining treating Doctor. The learned Claims Tribunal assessed monthly income of the injured/claimant Rs.5,000/- which is not in consonance with the minimum wages matrix. The minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of January, 2019 was Rs.8,140/- and the learned Claims Tribunal should have taken that 18 figure while computing the income. The learned Claims Tribunal has granted compensation for loss of earning for 02 month Rs.10,000/-, which requires reconsideration. On the other heads, the learned Claims Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. Accordingly, the compensation is being revisited as under:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income as per minimum wages Rs.5,000/- per month Rs.8140/- per month 2. Loss of income for 02 months Rs.10,000/- Rs.16,280/- 3. For attendant Rs.4,000/- Rs.4,000/- 4. For medical expenses Rs.68,950/- Rs.68,950/- 5. For conveyance Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- 6. For special diet Rs.2,000/- Rs.2,000/- 7. For pain and suffering Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- Total : Rs.94,950/- Rs.1,01,230/- 20. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.94,950/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,01,230/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.94,950/-, the appellant/claimant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.6,280/-. The Insurance Company shall indemnify the compensation first and recover it from owner of the offending vehicle. 21. In MAC No. 1623/2023, (arising out of Claim Case No. 7/2020), the claimant is Samari Nayak. In the accident, she sustained simple injuries. The learned Claims Tribunal has granted compensation 19 against the medical bills submitted by the claimant to the tune of Rs.53,663/-. The learned Claims Tribunal further assessed monthly income of the claimant Rs.3,000/- which is at lower side and granted Rs. 6,000/- for loss of earning for two months which requires consideration. The minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of January, 2019 was Rs.8,140/- and the learned Claims Tribunal should have taken that figure while computing the income. On the other heads, the learned Claims Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. Accordingly, the compensation is being revisited as under:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income as per minimum wages Rs.3,000/- per month Rs.8,140/- per month 2. Loss of income for 02 months Rs.6,000/- Rs.16,280/- 3. For attendant Rs.4,000/- Rs.4,000/- 4. For medical expenses Rs. 53,663/- Rs.53,663/- 5. For conveyance Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- 6. For special diet Rs.2,000/- Rs.2,000/- 7. For pain and suffering Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- Total : Rs.75,663/- Rs.85,943/- 22. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.75,663/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.85,943/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.75,663/-, the appellant/claimant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.10,280/-. 20 The Insurance Company shall indemnify the compensation first and recover it from owner of the offending vehicle. 23. In MAC No. 1625/2023, (arising out of Claim Case No. 19/2020), the claimant is Surubali Nayak. In the accident, she sustained simple injuries. The learned Claims Tribunal assessed her monthly income Rs.5,000/- and granted Rs.2,500/- for loss of earning for 15 days. The claimant failed to prove the injuries sustained by her by examining treating Doctor. The learned Claims Tribunal considered the medical bills submitted by the claimant and granted a sum of Rs.30,000/- incurred in medical treatment and further granted Rs.5,000/- for transportation. Considering nature of injuries sustained by claimant, the learned Claims Tribunal should have granted loss of earning for period of 01 month. The minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of January, 2019 was Rs.8,140/- and the learned Claims Tribunal should have taken that figure while computing the income. On the other heads, the learned Claims Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. Accordingly, the compensation requires reconsideration and same is being revisited as under:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income as per minimum wages Rs.5,000/- per month Rs.8140/- per month 2. Loss of income for 15 days Rs.2,500/- Loss of income for 01 month Rs.8,140/- 3. For medical expenses Rs.30,000/- Rs.30,000/- 4. For conveyance Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- 5. For special diet Rs.1,000/- Rs.1,000/- 21 6. For pain and suffering Rs.2,000/- Rs.2,000/- Total : Rs.40,500/- Rs.46,140/- 24. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.40,500/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.46,140/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.40,500/-, the appellant/claimant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.5,640/-. The Insurance Company shall indemnify the compensation first and recover it from owner of the offending vehicle. 25. In MAC No. 1626/2023, (arising out of Claim Case No. 14/2020), the claimant is Smt. Ramsheela. In the accident, she sustained simple injuries. In this case, claimant failed to prove the injuries sustained by her by examining treating Doctor. The claimant pleaded that she sustained injuries including fracture and remained hospitalized for few days. The learned Claims Tribunal assessed monthly income of the injured/claimant only Rs.5,000/- and granted lump sum compensation of Rs.5,000/- on all the heads. The learned Claims Tribunal should have granted compensation for transportation, special diet and for pain and suffering, therefore compensation granted by the learned Tribunal which requires reconsideration. Accordingly, the compensation is being revisited as under:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Lumpsum compensation awarded in all the heads Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- 22 2. For transportation - Nil - Rs.1,000/- 3. For special diet - Nil - Rs.2,000/- 4. For pain and suffering - Nil - Rs.2,000/- Total : Rs.5,000/- Rs.10,000/- 26. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.5,000/-, the appellant/claimant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.5,000/-. The Insurance Company shall indemnify the compensation first and recover it from owner of the offending vehicle. 27. In MAC No. 1627/2023 , (arising out of Claim Case No. 20/2020), MAC No. 1628/2023, (arising out of Claim Case No. 08/2020) and MAC No. 1641/2023, (arising out of Claim Case No. 10/2020) the claimants have sought a direction to Insurance Company to first indemnify the award and recover it from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. The claimants have not disputed the amount of award granted by the learned Claims Tribunal. The issue raised in these appeals shall be considered in the later part of this judgment. 28. In MAC No. 1630/2023, (arising out of Claim Case No. 09/2020), the claimant is Siromoti Nayak. In the accident, she sustained simple injuries. The learned Claims Tribunal has granted compensation against the medical bills submitted by the claimant to the tune of Rs.12,355/-. The learned Claims Tribunal further assessed monthly income of the claimant Rs.4,000/- which is at lower side and granted Rs. 8,000/- for 02 months for loss of earning which requires 23 reconsideration. The minimum wage admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of January, 2019 was Rs.8,140/- and the learned Claims Tribunal should have taken that figure while computing the income. On the other heads, the learned Claims Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. Accordingly, the compensation requires reconsideration and same is being revisited as under:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal Compensation awarded by the this Court 1. Income as per minimum wages Rs.4,000/- per month Rs.8,140/- 2. Loss of income for 02 months Rs.8,000/- Rs.16,280/- 3. For attendant Rs.4,000/- Rs.4,000/- 4. For medical expenses Rs.12,355/- Rs.12,355/- 5. For conveyance Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- 6. For special diet Rs.2,000/- Rs.2,000/- 7. For pain and suffering Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- Total : Rs.36,355/- Rs.44,635/- 29. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.36,355/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.44,635/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.36,355/-, the appellant/claimant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.8,280/-. The Insurance Company shall indemnify the compensation first and recover it from owner of the offending vehicle. 30. In MAC No. 1634/2023, (arising out of Claim Case No. 16/2020), the claimant is Yoshoda. In the accident, she sustained simple injuries and 24 at the time of accident, she was aged about 65 years. The claimant failed to prove the injuries sustained by her by examining treating Doctor. No permanent disability was suffered by the claimant. The learned Claims Tribunal assessed her monthly income Rs.4,000/- and granted Rs.4,000/- for loss of earning for 01 month, which requires reconsideration. The learned Claims Tribunal considered the medical bills submitted by the claimant and granted a sum of Rs.45,000/- towards medical expenses. The minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of January, 2019 was Rs.8,140/- and the learned Claims Tribunal should have taken that figure while computing the income. On the other heads, the learned Claims Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. Accordingly, the compensation requires reconsideration and same is being revisited as under:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income as per minimum wages Rs.4,000/- Rs.8,140/- 2. Loss of income for 01 month Rs.4,000/- Rs.8,140/- 3. For attendant Rs.2,000/- Rs.2,000/- 4. For medical expenses Rs.45,000/- Rs.45,000/- 5. For conveyance Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- 6. For special diet Rs.2,000/- Rs.2,000/- 7. For pain and suffering Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- Total : Rs.63,000/- Rs.67,140/- 25 31. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.63,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.67,140/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.63,000/-, the appellant/claimant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.4,140/-. The Insurance Company shall indemnify the compensation first and recover it from owner of the offending vehicle. 32. In MAC No. 1635/2023, (arising out of Claim Case No. 15/2020), the claimant is Sulendri Rauthore. In the accident, she suffered permanent disability to the extent of 70%. The claimant failed to examine any member of Medical Board to prove disability certificate Ex. 6-C. The learned Claims Tribunal assessed loss of income taking into consideration disability suffered and assessed the income of the claimant Rs.5,500/- which is at lower side. The learned Claims Tribunal should have taken into consideration the minimum wage admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of January, 2019, which was Rs.8,140/-.The disability certificate Ex. 6-C was issued for a period of 03 years, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal granted compensation for loss of earning for period of 39 months. On the other heads, the learned Claims Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. Accordingly, the compensation requires reconsideration and same is being revisited as under:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income as per minimum wages Rs.5,500/- per month Rs.8,140/- per month 2. Loss of income for 03 months Rs.16,500/- Rs.24,420/- 26 3. Loss of earning capacity for 39 months due to 70% in future Rs.5,500/- x 70% /100= Rs.3,850/- Rs.3,850/- x 39 = Rs.1,50,150/- Rs.8,140/- x 70% /100= Rs.5,698/- Rs.5,698/- x 39 = Rs.2,22,222/- 4. For attendant Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- 5. For medical expenses Rs.1,90,498/- Rs.1,90,498/- 6. For conveyance Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- 7. For special diet Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- 8. For pain and suffering Rs.8,000/- Rs.8,000/- Total : Rs.3,90,148/- Rs.4,70,140/- 33. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.3,90,148/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.4,70,140/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.3,90,148/-, the appellant/claimant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.79,992/-. The Insurance Company shall indemnify the compensation first and recover it from owner of the offending vehicle. 34. In MAC No. 1644/2023, (arising out of Claim Case No. 11/2020), the claimant is Hatbari Nayak. In the accident, she sustained simple injuries. The learned Claims Tribunal has granted compensation against the medical bills submitted by the claimant to the tune of Rs.20,550/-. The learned Claims Tribunal further assessed monthly income of the claimant Rs.4,500/- which is at lower side and requires reconsideration. The minimum wage admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of January, 2019 was Rs.8,140/- and the learned Claims Tribunal should have taken that figure while computing the income. On the other heads, the learned Claims Tribunal has granted 27 just and proper compensation. Accordingly, the compensation requires reconsideration and same is being revisited as under:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income as per minimum wages Rs.4,500/- Rs.8,140/- 2. For attendant Rs.2,000/- Rs.2,000/- 3. For medical expenses/bills Rs.20,550/- Rs.20,550/- 4. For conveyance Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- 5. For special diet Rs.8,000/- Rs.8,000/- 6. For pain and suffering Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- Total : Rs.45,050/- Rs.48,690/- 35. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.45,050/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.48,690/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.45,050/-, the appellant/claimant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.3,640/-. The Insurance Company shall indemnify the compensation first and recover it from owner of the offending vehicle. 36. MAC No. 1670/2023 , (arising out of Claim Case No. 13/2020), is a death case, where Ghasnin Rathore lost her life. The claim case was filed by her son Murlidhar Rathore who stated that at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 55 years and earning Rs.12,000/- per month as she was a tailor. The learned Claims Tribunal assessed her income Rs.4,500/- per month and further added 10% of monthly income for future prospects; deducted ½ for personal and living 28 expenses; applied multiplier of 11 and thus granted Rs.3,26,700/- for loss of dependency. The learned Claims Tribunal has granted compensation against the medical bills submitted by the claimant to the tune of Rs.1,96,856/- and also Rs.10,000/- as she was admitted in the hospital. The learned Claims Tribunal further granted Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate; Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium. The Claims Tribunal should have taken into consideration the minimum wages matrix while computing the income of the deceased. The minimum wage admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of January, 2019 was Rs.8,140/- and the learned Claims Tribunal should have taken that figure into account. On the other heads, the learned Claims Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. Accordingly, the compensation requires reconsideration and same is being revisited as under:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income as per minimum wages Rs.4,500/- per month Rs.8,140/- per month 2. Future prospects @ 10% Rs.450/- + Rs.4,500/- = Rs.4,950/- Rs.814/- + Rs.8,140/- = Rs.8,954/- 3. Deduction of ½ towards personal and living expenses Rs.4,950/- - Rs.2,475/-= Rs.2,475/- Rs.8,954/- - Rs.4,477/-= Rs.4,477/- 4. Per month income of deceased Rs.2,475/- Rs.4,477/- 5. Annual Income of the deceased Rs.2,475/- x 12 = Rs.29,700/- Rs.4,477/- x 12 = Rs.53,724/- 29 6. Multiplier of 11 Rs.29,700/- x 11 = Rs.3,26,700/- Rs.53,724/- x 11 = Rs.5,90,964/- 7. For medical expenses/bills Rs.1,96,856/- Rs.1,96,856/- 8. The deceased was admitted in the hospital Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- 9. For loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 10. For funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 11. For loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/- Total : Rs.6,03,556/- Rs.8,67,820/- 37. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.6,03,556/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.8,67,820/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.6,03,556/-, the appellant/claimant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.2,64,264/-. The Insurance Company shall indemnify the compensation first and recover it from owner of the offending vehicle. 38. MAC No. 267/2022 , (arising out of Claim Case No. 03/2020), is a death case. The claim case was filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation on account of death of deceased- Balalaika aged about 60 years. The learned Claims Tribunal assessed income of the deceased Rs.4,500/- per month and further added 10% of monthly income for future prospects; deducted ½ for personal and living expenses; applied multiplier of 9 and thus granted Rs.2,67,300/- for loss of dependency. The learned Claims Tribunal further granted Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate; Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.80,000/- for loss of consortium. 30 The learned Claims Tribunal should have taken into consideration the minimum wages matrix while computing the income of the deceased. The minimum wage admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of January, 2019 was Rs.8,140/- and the learned Claims Tribunal should have taken that figure into account. Further the learned Claims Tribunal committed error of law in deducting ½ of the income of the deceased towards personal and living expenses, as the number of the dependents is two, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd for personal expenses of the deceased. On the other heads, the learned Claims Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. Accordingly, the compensation requires reconsideration and same is being revisited as under:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income as per minimum wages Rs.4,500/- per month Rs.8,140/- per month 2. Future prospects @ 10% Rs.450/- + Rs.4,500/- = Rs.4,950/- Rs.814/- + Rs.8,140/- = Rs.8,954/- 3. Deduction of ½ towards personal expenses Rs.4,950/- - Rs.2,475/- = Rs.2,475/- Deduction of 1/3rd Rs.8,954/- - Rs.2,985/- = Rs.5,969/- 4. Per month income of the deceased Rs.2,475/- Rs.5,969/- 5. Annual income of the deceased Rs.2,475/- x 12 = Rs.29,700/- Rs.5,969/- x 12 = Rs.71,628/- 6. Multiplier of 9 Rs.29,700/- x 9 = Rs.2,67,300/- Rs.71,628/- x 9 = Rs.6,44,652/- 7. For loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 8. For funeral Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- 31 expenses 9. For loss of consortium to the claimants (Rs.40,000/- + Rs.40,000/-) Rs.80,000/- Rs.80,000/- Total : Rs.3,77,300/- Rs.7,54,652/- 39. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.3,77,300/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.7,54,652/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.3,77,300/-, the appellant/claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.3,77,352/-. The Insurance Company shall indemnify the compensation first and recover it from owner of the offending vehicle. 40. Now the case as to whether the learned Claims Tribunal should have issued direction with regard to pay and recover. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anu Bhanvara (supra) held that though the claimants were gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle, but they were young children who suffered permanent disability on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, therefore, in peculiar facts and circumstances of case, the principle of “pay and recover” would apply. Relevant paragraph no. 11 is reproduced herein below:- “11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the various decisions cited by the learned counsel for the parties. The insurance of the vehicle, though as a goods vehicle, is not disputed by the parties. The claimants in the present case are young children who have suffered permanent disability on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. Thus, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the principle of “pay and recover” should be directed to be invoked in the present case.” Such observation was made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court 32 looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as the claimants were young children who suffered permanent disability. Therefore, the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in matter of Anu Bhanvara (supra) cannot be applied in the these case. 41. In the matter of Sunita (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with issue whether the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the compensation and thereafter recover the same from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. It was a case where the claim case was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased (gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle) and the vehicle in question was insured with liability only policy and no premium was paid to cover driver or owner or gratuitous passengers traveling therein. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the law laid down in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, reported in (2004) 2 SCC 1, wherein the deceased was gratuitous passenger and lost his life due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and Insurance Company was directed to satisfy the amount awarded and recover it from the owner of the vehicle. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further placed reliance in the matter of Anu Bhanvara (supra); 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, in these cases, 33 the deceased were gratuitous passengers, but direction was issued to the Insurance Company to indemnify the amount of compensation first and recover it from driver and owner. 42. In the matter of M. Ananthi & Ors. Vs. Venkatesan & Anr. passed in Civil Appeal No. 1175 of 2025, where the driver did not have any driving licence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the Insurance Company to indemnify the award and recover it from the owner and driver. 43. In cases at hand, the driver of the offending vehicle Metador could not place on record valid driving licence and it is also not in dispute that the claimants and deceased persons were gratuitous passengers in a goods carriage vehicle, but taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred judgments, in my considered opinion, the learned Claims Tribunal should have directed the Insurance Company to indemnify the compensation amount and recover it only from the owner of the offending vehicle Metador. 44. Consequently, these appeals are partly allowed. The amount of compensation and enhanced amount of compensation shall be indemnified by the Insurance Company first and the Insurance Company shall be at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle Metador. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 45. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), these appeals are disposed of. No order(s) as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti