1 CGHC010000542019 2026:CGHC:29359 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1 of 2019 1 - Vishram Prasad Verma S/o Aadoram Verma Aged About 45 Years R/o Najarlal Para Ward No. 14 Thana Sirgitty Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ...............Claimant., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Harpal Singh S/o Mahendar Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Vikash Nagar Kusmunda Quarter No. B/81 Thana Kusmunda District Korba Chhattisgarh. ...........Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Maruti Van Omaniu No. Chhattisgarh. 12/r. 0923 ............Driver., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mahendra Singh S/o Late Harnam Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Vikash Nagar Kusmunda Quarter No. B/81 Thana Kusmunda District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ..........Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Maruti Van Omani No. C. G. 12/r/ 0923. ...........Owner., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Rama Tred Center In Front Of Rajeev Plaza Old Bus Stand Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ...........Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Maruti Van Omani No. C. G. 12/r./ 0923. ............Insurer., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. AL Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. RN Pusty and Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocates ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K Agrawal (Order on Board) 13.07.2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/claimant SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN 2 seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dt. 104.12.2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.2,99,304/- as compensation to the appellant/claimant for the injuries sustained by him in a raod accident took place on 05.11.2017. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would make two folds submissions: (I) that submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of appellant as Rs.6,200/- which ought to have been taken Rs.7000/- (for six months) as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. Further, on the heads of pain and suffering, conveyance, special diet, attendant and future medical treatment, less amount has been awarded, which needs to be enhanced suitably and (ii) learned Claims Tribunal further erred in exonerating the respondent- No.03- Insurance Company from the liability on the ground of gratuitous passenger and, in light of recent decision of the Supreme Court in Sunita & ors v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and other 1 , the principle of pay and recover deserves to be adopted in the present case. Therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the appellant have failed to prove nature of occupation and income by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, hence, the 1 2025 SCC Online SC 1469 : 2025 INSC 867 3 Tribunal is justified in assessing income of the appellant on notional basis. The amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. Even, there is no illegality in the findings of the tribunal whereby the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay compensation to the claimant. 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, it is the plea of the appellant that learned Claims Tribunal further erred in exonerating the respondent- No.03- Insurance Company from the liability on the ground of gratuitous passenger, where in light of Sunita (supra) principle of pay and recover is required to be directed. 6. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sunita (supra) has held as under: “12. The next question which arises for our consideration is whether the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the compensation amount to the claimant-appellant and, thereafter, recover the same from the driver and owner of the vehicle. 13. Adverting to the facts in hand, from a bare perusal of the record, it is borne that the vehicle in question was insured with “Liability Only Policy” and no premium was paid to cover the driver, owner, or a gratuitous passenger travelling therein. However, even then, in our view, the Courts below erred in holding that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimant-appellants, for the principle of “Pay and Recover” ought to have been invoked. As such, we are inclined to interfere with the above findings of the Courts below. 4 14. We must advert to the exposition of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur (2004) 2 SCC 1. The deceased therein was travelling as a gratuitous passenger, and due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, lost his life. The Insurance Company was directed to satisfy the amount awarded by the Courts below and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, as the premium was not paid by the owner of the vehicle towards gratuitous passenger. 15. The above position has been followed by this Court in Anu Bhanvara v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 20 SCC 632 wherein the injured person was travelling as a gratuitous passenger and was not covered under the Insurance Policy, the driver and owner of the vehicle was held liable for payment of compensation amount. This Court applied the principle of “Pay and Recover” and directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount and, thereafter, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 16. The aforementioned principle was adopted by this Court in various judgments of this Court in 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. 17. Applying the above expositions of law, the Courts below ought to have directed the Insurance Company to indemnify the amount and thereafter recover the same. 18. Therefore, in light of the attending facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal and recover the same only from the owner of the offending vehicle.” 7. Thus, in view aforesaid dicta of the Supreme Court, the learned Claims Tribunal has clearly erred in law while exonerating the insurance company and, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, 5 doctrine of pay and recover is liable to be directed in the present case. It is held accordingly. 8. So far as another plea of the appellant is concerned, true it is that the learned tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.6200/-, which ought to be Rs.7000/- as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh and on other head also less amount has been awarded to the claimant and to that extent the impugned award needs to be modified. 9. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi 2, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors3 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 4 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income (for 06 months) Rs.6200/- x 6 = Rs.37,200/- Rs.7000/- x 6 = Rs.42,000/- 2 Medical Bills Rs.1,37,104/- Rs.1,37,104/- 3. Pain & Suffering Rs.40,000/- Rs.50,000/- 4. Special Diet Rs.15,000/- Rs.20,000/- 5. Attendant Rs.10,000 Rs.15,000/- 6. Future medical treatment Rs.50,000/- Rs.70,000/- 7. Transport Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/- 8. Amenities Nil Rs.10,000/- 9. Loss for Grievous Injuries NIL Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.2,99,304/- Rs.3,69,104/- 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 3 (2009) 6 SCC 121 4 (2018) 18 SCC 130 6 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.2,99,304/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,69,104/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.2,99,304/-, the appellant is held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.69,800/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of claim application before the claims tribunal till its realization. Further, in light of decision of Sunita (supra) by adopting the doctrine of pay and recover, it is ordered that the respondent No.03- Insurance Company would firstly pay the entire amount of compensation alongwith interest (including that amount enhanced by this Court) to the claimant and thereafter recover it from the owner and driver (respondents No.01 & 02) of the offending vehicle. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 11. 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