1 CGHC010069522020 2026:CGHC:37174 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 826 of 2020 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company) ... Appellant versus 1 - Meena Goswami, W/o. Late Ramlakhan Goswani, Aged About 32 Years, Present Address Resident Village Pratappur (Kadampara) Thana And Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Aaush Goswami, S/o. Late Ramlakhan Goswami, Aged About 13 Years, Minor Through Guardian Mother Appellant No.1 Meena Goswami, W/o. Late Ramlakhan Goswami, Present Address Resident Village Pratappur (Kadampara) Thana And Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Aakansha Goswami, D/o. Late Ramlakhan Goswami, Aged About 11 Years, Minor Through Guardian Mother Appellant No.1 Meena Goswami, W/o. Late Ramlakhan Goswami, Present Address Resident Village Pratappur (Kadampara) Thana And Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.08.20 14:11:14 +0530 2 4 - Surendra Prasad Sonwani, S/o. Bahoran Prasad Sonwani, Resident of Village Dhartipara, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh... (Vehicle Driver) 5 - Shivmangal Sahu, S/o. Ramdhani Sahu, Aged About 43 Years, Caste Teli, Resident of Village And Post Badsara, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh…... (Vehicle Owner) 6 - Shanti Goswami, W/o. Late Moti, Aged About 70 Years, Resident of Village And Post Badsara, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal & Ms. Prerna Agrawal, Advocates For Respondent No.4 & 5 : Mr. Pavas Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 19.08.2026 1. The appellant/insurance company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 26.11.2019 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratappur, District Surajpur, (for short “the Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.14/2019 by which the Claims 3 Tribunal after having held that the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger in breach of policy and further held that the principle of “pay and recover” would apply and directed the insurance company to first pay the amount of compensation and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 2. Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for the insurance company, submits that the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger and the policy Ex.NA-2 was liability only policy only for third party and the person who was traveling in the vehicle was gratuitous passenger was not third party, therefore, the principle of “pay and recover” would not apply. He would strongly rely upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sri Ranga Naik v. The United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr. 1 decided on 08.04.2026. He would further submit that the FIR was lodged with a delay of 108 days and the deceased died after 78 days of the accident, therefore, it could not be held that the deceased was died on account of accident occurred in the offending vehicle. 3. Mr. Pavas Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.4 & 5 (owner & driver), would support the impugned award and 1 SLP(C) NOS. 12499-12500/2021 4 relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Kaminiben & Ors. v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Ors. 2 and Sunita & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records meticulously. 5. The learned Claims Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, has clearly recorded a finding in para 18 of the award that the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger and, therefore, there is breach in terms of policy. It is not in dispute that the policy was Liability Only/ Act Only Policy and deceased was gratuitous passenger and no premium was paid to cover the gratuitous passenger traveling therein and there was no coverage. 6. In this regard, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sunita (supra) may be noticed herein in which the Supreme Court in para 13 held that even in the case of “Liability Only Policy” where no premium was paid to cover the gratuitous passenger traveling therein, the principle of “Pay & Recover” would apply and held in paras 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 & 18 as under : 2 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 174 3 2025 INSC 867 5 “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. 14. We must advert to the exposition of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Baljit Kaur4. 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. 5 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 4 (2004) 2 SCC 1 5 (2020) 20 SCC 632 6 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 6 ; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C.M. Jaya7; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Upendra Rao8; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vimal Devi 9 ; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul10; Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh11; and Puttappa v. Rama Naik12. 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. Thereafter, in Kaminiben (supra) similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court and it is held that when gratuitous passenger 6 (1998) 3 SCC 744 7 (2002) 2 SCC 278 8 (2004) 8 SCC 517 9 2010 SCC OnLine SC 49 10 (2013) 2 SCC 41 11 (2017) 4 SCC 796 12 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3496 7 travelling in the goods vehicle, the principle of “Pay and Recover” would apply. 8. So far as the other point is concerned that there was delay of 108 days in lodging the FIR. True there is some delay but this point has not been specifically raised and furthermore, on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR, the claim petition could not be rejected. In this regard, the Supreme Court in the matter of Ravi v. Badrinarayan & Ors.13 in para 17 & 18 held as under : “17. It is well settled that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the police station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the police station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. 18. In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinised more carefully. If the court finds that there is no indication of 13 (2011) 4 SCC 693 8 fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences.” 9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the decisions cited by the appellant/ insurance company is clearly distinguishable in the facts of the present case. As such, I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the insurance company, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok