1 CGHC010150972020 2026:CGHC:31691 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 920 of 2020 The United India Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Office (Division No. 1) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Shyamabai Wd/o Late Bhuneshwar Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Oatgan, P.S. Neora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Nandlal S/o Late Bhuneshwar Sahu Aged About 16 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother Shyamabai, Resident Of Village Oatgan, P.S. Neora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Bharti D/o Late Bhuneshwar Sahu Aged About 14 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother Shyamabai, Resident Of Village Oatgan, P.S. Neora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Bhagobai Wd/o Late Bisuram Sahu Aged About 75 Years R/o Village Oatgan, P.S. Neora, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Suraj Kumar S/o Late Shobharam Yadav Through Mohanlal Pandey S/o Amarnath Pandey, R/o Tulsinagar, D.D. School, Near Indira Stadium, Korba, P.S. Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 6 - Mohanlal Pandey S/o Amarnath Pandey R/o Tulsinagar, D.D. School, Near Indira Stadium, Korba, P.S. Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Insurance Company : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Adv. For Claimants : Mr. R.K. Thakur, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN 2 24.07.2026 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 challenging award dated 22.02.2020, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.10,15,000/- alongwith 8% interest PA as compensation to the claimants and the liability to pay the said compensation has been imposed upon the Insurance Company. 2. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the learned claims tribunal has erred in fastening the liability to pay compensation upon them, as on the date of accident the offending vehicle was being plied without having valid fitness certificate. He vehemently argued that though the said plea has been raised before the learned Claims Tribunal, but the same does not find favour and the insurance company has been held liable to pay the amount of compensation, which runs contrary to the decision of this Court rendered in New India Insurance (corrected name as Assurance) Company Limited v. Patiram Sahu and others 1 . Thus, the same is liable to be set aside and direction of pay and recover requires to be made. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant while arguing his cross-objection submits that just and proper compensation has not been awarded to the claimants and same is liable to be enhanced suitably. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival 1 2026 SCC Online Chh 7878 3 submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. Appeal of the Insurance Company: 5. So far as the plea of the Insurance Company that the tribunal has erred while imposing liability to pay compensation upon them by ignoring the fact that on the date of accident the offending vehicle was being plied without having valid fitness is concerned, this Court in Patiram Sahu (supra) by relying upon the decision of Kerala High Court in Pareed Pillai v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2 has clearly held that in absence of valid permit and fitness certificate of the offending vehicle at the time of accident, doctrine of pay and recover would be applicable and observed in Para-7 & 8 as under: “7. In this regard, the High Court of Kerala in the matter of Pareed Pillai, S/o Abdulkhader and Ors vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.2019 ACJ 16 has emphasized the importance and necessity to have a valid Fitness Certificate to the transport vehicles at all times and held at para-17 thus:- “17.The stipulations under the above provisions clearly substantiate the importance and necessity to have a valid Fitness Certificate to the transport vehicle at all times. The above prescription converges on the point that Certificate of Registration, existence of valid Permit and availability of Fitness Certificate, all throughout, are closely interlinked in the case of a transport vehicle and one requirement cannot be segregated from the other. The transport vehicle should be completely fit and road worthy, to be plied on the road, which otherwise may cause threat to the lives and limbs of passengers and the general public, apart from damage to property. Only if the transport vehicle is having valid Fitness Certificate, would the necessary Permit be issued in 2 2019 ACJ 16 4 terms of Section 66 of the Act and by virtue of the mandate under Section 56 of the Act, no transport vehicle without Fitness Certificate will be deemed as a validly registered vehicle for the purpose of Section 39 of the Act, which stipulates that nobody shall drive or cause the motor vehicle to be driven without valid registration in public place or such other place, as the case may be. These requirements are quite 'fundamental' in nature; unlike a case where a transport vehicle carrying more passengers than the permitted capacity or a goods carriage carrying excess quantity of goods than the permitted extent or a case where a transport vehicle was plying through a deviated route than the one shown in the route permit which instances could rather be branded as 'technical violations'. In other words, when a transport vehicle is not having a Fitness Certificate, it will be deemed as having no Certificate of Registration and when such vehicle is not having Permit or Fitness Certificate, nobody can drive such vehicle and no owner can permit the use of any such vehicle compromising with the lives, limbs, properties of the passengers/general public. Obviously, since the safety of passengers and general public was of serious concern and consideration for the law makers, appropriate and adequate measures were taken by incorporating relevant provisions in the Statute, also pointing out the circumstances which would constitute offence; providing adequate penalty. This being the position, such lapse, if any, can only be regarded as a fundamental breach and not a technical breach and any interpretation to the contrary, will only negate the intention of the law makers.” 8. In the instant case, at the time of accident, the offending vehicle did not have valid permit and fitness certificate. Therefore, the award passed against the Insurance Company deserves to be modified and principle of pay and recover would apply, in the light of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh and Another vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others (2018) 7 SCC 558 as also by the Kerala High Court in the matter of Pareed Pillai (Supra).” 6. In that view of the matter, since on the date of accident the 5 offending vehicle was being plied without having valid fitness certificate, the learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in fastening the liability to pay compensation to the claimants upon the insurance company, as doctrine of pay and recover ought to have been adopted. As such, to that extent, the impugned award is liable to be modified. Cross-objection filed by the claimants: 7. The claimants have filed cross-objection seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation on the ground that Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as Rs.6000/- per month which should be Rs.6,107/- as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh and, further, on the head of loss of consortium only Rs.40,000/- has been awarded which ought to have been Rs.40,000/- x 4 = Rs.1,60,000/-. As such, in the considered opinion of this Court, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal requires to be enhanced. 8. Thus, in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi 3, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors4 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 5 , this Court is computing the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the claimant, as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Compensation awarded by this 3 (2017) 16 SCC 680 4 (2009) 6 SCC 121 5 (2018) 18 SCC 130 6 Tribunal Court 1. Income Rs.6000/- x 12 = Rs.72,000/- Rs.6107/- x 12 = Rs.73,284/- 2 Future Prospect (+) 25% (i.e. Rs.18,000/-) = Rs.90,000/- (+) 25% (i.e. Rs.18,321/-) = Rs.91,605/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/4 (i.e. Rs.22,500/-) = Rs.67,500/- (-) 1/4 (i.e. Rs.22,901/-) = Rs.68,704/- 4. Multiplier (x) 14 = Rs.9,45,000/- (x) 14 = Rs.9,61,856/- 5. Funeral expenses (+) Rs.15,000/- (+) Rs.15,000/- 6. Loss of State (+) Rs.15,000/- (+) Rs.15,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium (+) Rs.40,000/- (+) Rs.40,000/- X 4 = Rs.1,60,000/- Total Rs.10,15,000/- Rs.11,51,856/- 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.10,15,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.11,51,856/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.10,15,000/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,36,856/-. 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. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Since in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment it has already been held that doctrine of pay and recover requires to be adopted in this matter, it is directed that the Insurance Company would firstly pay the entire amount of compensation alongwith interest (including that amount enhanced by this Court) to the claimants and thereafter recover it from 7 the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 10. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and the cross-objection filed by the claimants both are allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. sd/- (Sanjay K Agrawal) Judge s@if