1 2026:CGHC:22755 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1109 of 2019 1 - Smt. Nirmala Prajapati Wd/o Late Prabhat Kumar Prajapati Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Jheepatola, Tahsil- Charama, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Abhya Prajapati D/o Late Prabhat Kumar Prajapati Aged About 4 Years Minor Through His Guardian Mother Smt. Nirmala Prajapati Wd/o Late Prabhat Kumar Prajapati, R/o Village Jheepatola, Tahsil- Charama, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 3 - Utkarsh Prajapati S/o Late Prabhat Kumar Prajapati Aged About 11 Years Minor Through His Guardian Mother Smt. Nirmala Prajapati Wd/o Late Prabhat Kumar Prajapati, R/o Village Jheepatola, Tahsil- Charama, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 4 - Matli Devi W/o Rajeshwar Prasad Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Jheepatola, Tahsil- Charama, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 5 - Rajeshwar Prasad S/o Chova Prajapati Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Jheepatola, Tahsil- Charama, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants Versus 1 - Ramnaresh Bais S/o Ramavatar Aged About 30 Years R/o Bhaisraha, Sidhi, District Sidhi Madhya Pradesh., District : Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh 2 - Daroga Singh S/o Roopchand Singh R/o Nawagaon, Jagdalpur, Post Jagdalpur, District Baster Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN 2 For Appellants : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.01 : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.02 : None though served. For Respondent No.03 : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 14.05.2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation and direction for pay and recovery, challenging the impugned award dt. 02.02.2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.12,79,600/- as compensation for the death of Prabhat Prajapati, who died in a road accident took place on 18.06.2014. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. Claims Tribunal erred in awarding only Rs.40,000/- on the head of loss consortium, whereas it ought to have been awarded Rs.40,000/- X 5 = Rs.2,00,000/-. Further, learned counsel also submits that though the learned Claims Tribunal has clearly recorded finding that the owner of the offending vehicle did not have valid permit to ply the same on the date of accident, but failed to apply the principle of pay and recovery, which in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Amrit Paul Singh and another v. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others 1 ought to have been directed. Therefore, to that extent, the instant appeal be allowed 1 (2018) 7 SCC 558 3 and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced with the direction of pay and recover. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned award and prays for dismissal of this appeal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. In the case at hand, learned Claims Tribunal, on the head of loss of consortium has only awarded Rs.40,000/- to the appellants whereas it ought to have been Rs.40,000/- X 5 = Rs.2,00,000/-. Thus, the amount of compensation of Rs.12,79,600/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.14,39,600/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.12,79,600/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,60,000/-. The additional amount of compensation shall also carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. So far the prayer for applying the principle of pay and recover is concerned, admittedly, learned Claims Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding that on the date of accident, the owner of the offending vehicle was not having valid permit to ply the same and, therefore, exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability to pay compensation and 4 fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation on the owner, but failed to apply the principle of pay and recovery. As such, in light of the decision of Amrit Paul Singh(supra) is directed that the respondent No.03-Insurance Company would firstly pay the entire amount of compensation alongwith interest to the claimants and, thereafter, recover it from the respondent No.02- Owner of the offending vehicle. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if