1 CGHC010033222020 2026:CGHC:30353 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 470 of 2020 1 - United India Insurance Company Limited Anupma Chowk, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company)., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Samwati Tamo S/o Late Shankar Tamo Aged About 29 Years R/o Village And Post Belnar Kunjampara, Tahsil Bhairamgarh, District Beejapur Chhattisgarh., District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Parmesh S/o Late Shankar Tamo Aged About 6 Years Respondent No. 2 Minor Through Natural Guardian His Mother Smt. Samwati Tamo W/o Late Shankar Tamo, R/o Village And Post Belnar Kunjampara, Tahsil Bhairamgarh, District Beejapur Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Santosh Yadav S/o Sakaram Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Shivajee Ward, Dewanganpara, Bhairamgarh, Thana Bhairamgarh, District Beejapur Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle Driver)., District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Jairam Gupta S/o Shri Ram Lakhan Gupta R/o Geedam, Tahsil And Thana Geedam, District South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle Owner), District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) 2 MAC No. 472 of 2020 1 - United India Insurance Company Limited Mandi Road, Jagdalpur, Post Office Jagdalpur , District Bastar Chhattisgarh.(Insurance Company)..(Appellant), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Smt. Samwati Tamo S/o Late Shankar Tamo Aged About 29 Years Resident Village And Post Belnar, Kunjampara, Tahsil Bhairamgarh, District Beejapur Chhattisgarh..(Claimant), District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Santosh Yadav S/o Sakaram Yadav Aged About 30 Years Resident Ward No. 10 Shivajee Ward , Dewanganpara, Bhairamgarh, Thana Bhairamgarh District Beejapur Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle Driver), District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Jairam Gupta S/o Shri Ram Lakhan Gupta Resident Geedam , Tahsil And Thana Geedam , District South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh (Vehicle Owner), District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None though served SB – Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 16/07/2026 1. Since both of these appeals have arisen out of common accident and since common question of law and fact is involved in both of 3 these appeals, therefore, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. MAC/470/2020 has been preferred by the appellant (Insurance Company) against the impugned award dated 15/11/2019 passed by learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dantewada, District Dakshin Bastar in Claim Case No. 54/2017 whereby compensation of Rs. 10,22,000/- has been granted in favour of the claimant for the death of her husband namely Shankar Tamo and MAC/472/2020 has been preferred by the appellant (Insurance Company) against the impugned award dated 15/11/2019 passed in Claims Case No. 55/2017 whereby compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant for the death of her son namely Ramesh Tamo, aged about 3 years and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant (Insurance Company). 3. Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that deceased persons were travelling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passengers, therefore, in view of the Insurance policy (Ex. D/1), which is a liability only policy, appellant (Insurance Company) would not be liable to pay compensation and at the most, the appellant (Insurance Company) can be held liable for payment of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for each of the deceased persons. 4. None appeared on behalf of the respondents though served. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and after going 4 through the record, particularly considering the insurance policy (Ex. D/1), which is a liability only policy, and since the deceased persons were travelling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passengers, the appellant (Insurance Company) can be held liable for payment of compensation to each of the deceased persons and then to recover from the owner of the vehicle. 6. However, at this stage, it would be profitable to notice the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sunita & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.1 decided on 17/07/2025 wherein it has been stated in paragraphs 13 and 18 as under :- “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. 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 of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunita (supra), the appellant (Insurance Company) is directed to firstly pay the compensation amount to the claimant and thereafter, recover it from the owner 1 2025 INSC 867 5 and driver of the vehicle. 8. In that view of the matter, both the appeals are allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. Since none appeared for the respondents, even though they have been served, the cross- objections filed by the them are hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE Harneet