1 2026:CGHC:4972 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 72 of 2022 * - Khem Lal Pal S/o Late Shri Sakha Ram Pal Aged About 57 Years Occupation Vehicle Driver. R/o Village- Kurra Post- Patewa, Tahsil- Abhanpur District- Raipur (C.G.) … Appellant Versus 1 - Itwariram Sahu S/o Late Shri Sonuram Sahu Aged About 62 years Owner Of The Offending Vehicle R/o Village- Bamhani, Post Bamhani, Tahsil And Thana And District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Maruti Heights Mova Bazzar Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant/Claimant : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No. 2/ Insurance Company For Respondent No. 1/Owner : : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate None, though served Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 29/01/2026 1. The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of compensation assailing the judgment and award passed by the learned Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 363/2019 dated 26.11.2021, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.4,32,185/- with interest @ 9% Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.02.02 13:50:51 +0530 2 per annum on account of injuries sustained by the claimant herein and fastened liability with the owner of the vehicle. 2. Mr. A.L. Singroul, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would submit that on 10.03.2019 at about 01:30 pm. the claimant/driver of the offending Hyva bearing registration No. CG-04 / LM-7757 had parked the vehicle to fix some mechanical fault and said vehicle moved forward. The claimant was beneath the vehicle and he sustained injuries including fracture of right leg and palm of right hand. Mr. Singroul would contend that the claim case was filed by the claimant, inter alia on the ground that at the time of accident, his age was 57 years and earning Rs.3250/- per month. He would submit that the Medical Board assessed permanent disability to the extent of 80%. He would further submit that the learned Claims Tribunal committed error of law while fastening liability with the owner of the vehicle, whereas premium towards insurance policy was paid through cheque no. 701113 dated 08.12.2018. He would contend that the cheque was dishonored, but intimation was not sent to the owner of the vehicle, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal should have fastened liability with the Insurance Company. It is also argued that on conventional heads, the learned Claims Tribunal has granted meager amount. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Saurabh Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/Insurance Company would oppose. He would submit that the premium towards insurance policy was paid by the owner of the vehicle through cheque no. 701113 dated 08.12.2018, but the said cheque was dishonored on 10.01.2019. He would contend that intimation was given to the owner of the vehicle vide Ex. D/3 and Ex. 3 D/4 on 12.01.2019, but no steps were taken by the owner to pay the premium, therefore, the insurance policy was cancelled. Mr. Gupta would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the injured/claimant Rs.3,250/- per month as pleaded in the claim petition and further assessed loss of income on the basis of permanent disability certificate. He would contend that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded proper compensation on other heads. He would submit that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. In have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the learned Claims Tribunal with utmost circumspection. 5. The claimant pleaded that on the date of accident, his income was Rs.3,250/- per month. The learned Claims Tribunal has accepted it. The permanent disability to the extent of 80% has also been accepted by the learned Claims Tribunal. The learned Claims Tribunal has further granted compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.15,000/- for special diet; Rs.15,000/- for attendant; Rs.15,000/- for transportation; Rs.85,705/- for medical treatment and Rs.2,76,480/- for loss of income on account of permanent disability. The compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal appears to be just and proper looking to the injuries sustained by the claimant. 6. With regard to termination of insurance policy, the premium towards insurance policy was paid by the owner of the offending vehicle through cheque no. 701113 dated 08.12.2018. The said cheque got dishonored on 10.01.2019. The owner of the vehicle was duly intimated vide letters Ex. D/3 and Ex. D/4 dated 12.01.2019, but no steps were taken to make payment of premium. 4 7. The Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited v. Sunita Devi and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1647 while dealing with similar issue held as under:- “5. In Deddappa v. Branch Manger, National Insurance Company Limited [(2008) 2 SCC 234] this Court addressed very point interpretating the provisions of Section 147 (5), 149 (1) and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in relation to the liability of the insurance company vis-a-vis the third party in the eventuality of rescindment of the insurance contract on account of non-payment of premium because of bouncing of the cheque issued towards premium amount. In that case, the cheque dated 15.10.1997 was dishonoured on 21.10.1995 due to insufficient funds, upon which the respondent-Insurance Company cancelled the policy and informed the vehicle owner as well as the RTO. 5.1 This Court held that the contract of insurance stood rescinded due to failure of consideration and intimation to that effect given to the parties concerned. However, the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, directed the insurance company to compensate the appellant and to recover amount from the vehicle owner. 5.2 The subsequent judgment in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Laxmamma & Others, (2012) 5 SCC 234, laid down the very principle that the statutory liability of the insurer to indemnify the third parties would subsist unless the insurance policy was cancelled and the intimation of such cancelation had reached the insured before the accident. In this judgment also, this Court reiterated the “pay and recovery” principle. 5.3 Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is to be noticed that the accident took place on 22.08.2025. The cheque towards premium was dishonoured and intimation was given vide letter dated 04.05.2005. Therefore, there was a gap of more than three months from the date when the insurance policy was liable to be treated as cancelled and the date when the accident took place. 5.4 The High Court in its judgment, while confirming the judgment and award of the Claims Tribunal, appears to have taken the view that the insurer having admittedly issued the insurance policy against third party risk, the rights of third party would not get affected when the policy was issued and in that light the insurer must satisfy the award in favour of the third party, by protecting the rights of the insurer to allow it the right of recovery. 5 5.5 From the facts on record and more particularly in view of the decisions of this Court in Deddappa (supra) and United India Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) it could be immediately seen that even as this Court has underscored the proposition that cancellation of insurance policy issued in favour of the third party for covering third party risk, because of bouncing of cheque for premium or non- payment of premium, would in law, absolve the insurer from liability to pay the compensation, once the insurer has intimated the cancellation to the parties concerned, in the final directions issued, the Court thought it fit to direct the insurance company to make payment of compensation to the claimants and thereafter to permit it to recover the same. 5.6 It is to be noted at this stage that pursuant to order dated 27.07.2007 passed by the court in the present proceedings, the appellant-Insurance Company has already deposited one-half of the total awarded compensation with interest and that the claimants have withdrawn the said amount. 5.7 Depositing of the compensation amount by the Insurance Company as above could be well said to be conforming the law laid down by this Court in Deddappa (supra) and in United India Insurance Company (supra). The Insurance Company has deposited the 50% amount of compensation with interest as awarded, the same is also released and the respondent-claimants have received them, in larger interest of justice to all parties, no recovery deserves to be permitted for the said amount deposited and withdrawn from the claimants. It would be not only harsh but would amount to setting the clock back.” 8. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the judgment and award dated 26.11.2021 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti