1 CGHC010172042024 2026:CGHC:32289 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1024 of 2024 1 - Smt. Anjani Bai W/o Late Shri Mukesh Nishad, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Rengakathera, Police Station/tehsil Mohla, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Present District Mohla-Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Gaurav Nishad S/o Late Shri Mukesh Nishad, Aged About 8 Years, Minor Through Mother Smt. Anjani, Bai, W/o Late Shri Mukesh Nishad, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Rengakathera, Police Station/tehsil Mohla, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Present District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Tarachand Nishad S/o Late Shri Mukesh Nishad, Aged About 6 Years, Minor Through Mother Smt. Anjani, Bai, W/o Late Shri Mukesh Nishad, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Rengakathera, Police Station/tehsil Mohla, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Present District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Hariram Nishad S/o Late Shriram Lal Nishad, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Village Rengakathera, Police Station/tehsil Mohla, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Present District Mohla-Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Ramla Bai W/o Hari Ram Nishad, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Village Rengakathera, Police Station/tehsil Mohla, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Present District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Homanchand Churendra S/o Kamta Prasad Churendra, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Rengakathera, Police Station/tehsil Mohla District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, Present District- Mohla- Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Tvs Redan No. CG-08 Al-6330). SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.07.29 17:26:55 +0530 2 2 - Kamta Prasad Churendra S/o Shri Kedarnath Churendra, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Rengakathera, Police Station/tehsil Mohla District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, Present District- Mohla- Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Tvs Redan No. CG-08 Al-6330). 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Office Near Lic Officer, Station, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Tvs Redan No. CG-08 Al- 6330). ... Respondents For Appellants : Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate For Respondents No.3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (28.07.2026) 1. Heard on I.A. Nos. 01/2024, 02/2025 and 03/2025 for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 266 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Also heard on admission. 4. Admit. 5. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the case is heard finally. 6. 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 the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 08.05.2023, passed in Claim Case No.25/2020, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of 3 Rs.18,78,600/- as compensation for the death of Mukesh Nishad, who died in a road accident which took place on 30.11.2019. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding lesser compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. She further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal wrongly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 8,500/- per month, whereas it ought to have been assessed at Rs. 8,600/- per month in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the Office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. It is further submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded lesser compensation under the other heads, which also warrants suitable enhancement. It is, therefore, prayed that the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. She further submits that although there is a breach of the insurance policy, the vehicle was insured at the time of the accident. Therefore, an order of “pay and recover” may be passed. In support of her submissions, she has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amrit Paul Singh and Another Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558 1 and Sunita and Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1464 2 . 8. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3/Insurance Company opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and submits that there has been a breach of the 1 (2018) 7 SCC 558 2 2025 SCC Online SC 1464 4 insurance policy; therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. Hence, the Insurance Company is also not liable for 'pay and recover'. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 11.In the case at hand, true it is that the learned Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.8,500/-, which ought to be Rs.8,600/- as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. Furthermore, in other conventional heads the Tribunal has granted only Rs.1,65,000/- which ought to be 2,53,000/-, to that extent the impugned award needs to be modified. 12.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 Sethi3, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors4 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors5, this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1 Income Rs. 8,500 x 12 = 1,02,000/- Rs. 8,600 x 12 = 1,03,200/- 2. Future prospect (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 40,800) = 1,42,800/- (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 41,280) = 1,44,480/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/4 (i.e.35,700) = 1,07,100/- (-) 1/4 (i.e. 36,120) = 1,08,360/- 4. Multiplier (x) 16 = 17,13,600/- (x) 16 = 17,33,760/- 5 Other Rs. 1,65,000/- Rs. 2,53,000/- 3 (2017) 16 SCC 680 4 (2009) 6 SCC 121 5 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 conventional heads (16,500+16,500+1,3 2,000) (16,500+16,500+2,20 ,000) Total Rs. 18,78,600/- Rs. 19,86,760/- 13. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.18,78,600/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.19,86,760/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.18,78,600/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,08,160/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from filing of the claim application before the Claims Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 14. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants prays for applying the principle of pay and recover. It is clear from the evidence that though at the time of the accident, the driver/respondent No.1 of the offending vehicle had not possessed a valid and effective driving license, but the offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company/respondent No.3. Therefore, considering the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amrit Paul Singh and Another Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558 and Sunita and Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1464, ordering the insurance company to pay first and then recover and also taking note of the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly the fact that at the time of accident the vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3/insurance company, it is directed that the insurance company shall first pay the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants and then recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 15. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. 6 16. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the concerned Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants resides. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge $ourabh