1 CGHC010139782020 2026:CGHC:35667 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 830 of 2020 1 - Pushpa Jaiswal Wife Of Late Brijbihari Aged About 30 Years Permanent Resident Of Village - Kesari, Tahsil - Wadrafnagar, District - Balrampur Chhattisgarh At Present Business Address- Village-Ghui, Tahsil- Pratappur, District-Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Shivam Kumar Jaiswal Son Of Late Brijbihari Aged About 10 Years Minor, Represented Through Legal Guardian Mother Pushpa Jaiswal Wife Of Late Brijbihari, Permanent Resident Of Village - Kesari, Tahsil - Wadrafnagar, District - Balrampur Chhattisgarh At Present Business Address- Village-Ghui, Tahsil- Pratappur, District-Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chandan Kumar Jaiswal Son Of Late Brijbihari Aged About 8 Years Minor, Represented Through Legal Guardian Mother Pushpa Jaiswal Wife Of Late Brijbihari, Permanent Resident Of Village - Kesari, Tahsil - Wadrafnagar, District - Balrampur Chhattisgarh At Present Business Address- Village-Ghui, Tahsil- Pratappur, District-Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Pooja Daughter Of Late Brijbihari Aged About 5 Years Minor, Represented Through Legal Guardian Mother Pushpa Jaiswal Wife Of Late Brijbihari, Permanent Resident Of Village - Kesari, Tahsil - HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2026.08.14 10:48:16 +0530 2 Wadrafnagar, District - Balrampur Chhattisgarh At Present Business Address- Village-Ghui, Tahsil- Pratappur, District-Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Muna Devi Wife Of Late Ramnarayan Jaiswal Aged About 60 Years Permanent Resident Of Village - Kesari, Tahsil - Wadrafnagar, District - Balrampur Chhattisgarh At Present Business Address- Village-Ghui, Tahsil- Pratappur, District-Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Basantlal Jaiswal Son Of Kanhaiyalal Jaiswal Aged About 45 Years Resident Of Village - Sistola, Post - Babhni, Tahsil - Duddhi, District- Sonbhadra Uttar Pradesh (Vehicle Driver), District : Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh 2 - Ajay Kumar Yadav Son Of Rajkumar Yadav Aged About 45 Years Resident Of Nagar Panchayat Wadrafnagar, Near Police Chowki, Chandauri Para, Post And Tahsil - Wadrafnagar, District - Balrampur Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 3 - United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office-Bramha Road, Near Ram Mandir, Village And Post-Ambikapur, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate (connected through video conferencing) For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Abhishek Mishra on behalf of Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocates 3 SB – Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 12/08/2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation challenging the impugned award dated 25/02/2020 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratappur, District Surajpur in MACT No. 33/2019 whereby compensation of Rs. 6,46,000/- has been awarded in favour of the appellants/claimants for the death of Brijbihari and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the owner and driver of the vehicle. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that though the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability of payment of compensation but in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sunita & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.1 principle of pay and recover ought to have been applied. He would further submit that so far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has not granted future prospect at all and has applied 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses whereas it ought to have applied 1/4th deduction. Moreover, the Claims Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the 1 2025 INSC 867 4 deceased as Rs. 4,500/- however, it should be Rs. 6,549/- as per the minimum wage notification, thus, the amount of compensation may suitably be enhanced. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. So far as the question of quantum of compensation is concerned, learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4,500/- whereas it should be Rs. 6,549/- as per the minimum wage notification. Moreover, the Tribunal has not granted future prospect at all and has made 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased. It ought to have granted 40% future prospect and ought to have made a deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased. 6. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, this Court is computing the compensation as mentioned below :- 7. Thus, this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 4,500/- x 12 = Rs. 54,000/- Rs. 6,549/- x 12 = Rs. 78,588/- 5 2. Future Prospect NIL (+) 40% i.e. Rs. 31,435.2/- = Rs. 1,10,023.2/- 2. Deduction towards personal expense (-) 1/3 i.e. Rs. 18,000/- = Rs. 36,000/- (-) 1/4 i.e. Rs. 27,505.75/-= Rs. 82,517.27/- 3. Multiplier (x) 16 = Rs. 5,76,000/- (x) 16 = Rs. 13,20,276/- 4. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 5. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 6. Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/- x 5 = Rs. 2,00,000/- Total Rs. 6,46,000/- Rs. 15,50,276/- 8. Thus, the amount of compensation of Rs. 6,46,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 15,50,276/-. Hence, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 9,04,276/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 01/05/2019 till its realization. 9. Now, so far as the question of liability of payment of compensation is concerned, learned Claims Tribunal, after consideration of material available on record, has clearly recorded a finding that the vehicle was insured as a Private Car under Liability Only Policy for which premium of Rs. 4,981/- was paid for third party 6 and premium of Rs. 50/- was paid for the driver and no premium was paid for any other person and since the deceased Brijbihari was sitting as a passenger in the vehicle, Insurance Company would not be liable to make payment of compensation to the claimants and therefore, the owner and driver of the vehicle would be liable for payment of compensation. 10. The Supreme Court, in the matter of Sunita (supra), has considered the issue whether the principle of pay and recover can be invoked in respect of the vehicle insured with the “Act Only Policy/Liability Only Policy” and no premium was paid to cover the driver, owner or a gratuitous passenger travelling therein, and held 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. 14.We must advert to the exposition of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur 2 . 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. 2 (2004) 2 SCC 1 7 15. The above position has been followed by this Court in Anu Bhanvara v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.3, 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 4; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C.M. Jaya 5; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Upendra Rao 6; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vimal Devi 7 ; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul 8 ; Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh 9 ; and Puttappa v. Rama Naik 10 . 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.” 11. Thus, though the Claims Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability of payment of compensation, however, in light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in 3 (2020) 20 SCC 632 4 (1998) 3 SCC 744 5 (2002) 2 SCC 278 6 (2004) 8 SCC 517 7 2010 SCC OnLine SC 49 8 (2013) 2 SCC 41 9 (2017) 4 SCC 796 10 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3496 8 Sunita (supra), the principle of pay and recover is applied and it is hereby directed that the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company would firstly pay compensation to the claimants and thereafter, recover it from the owner and driver. The rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 12. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified and this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE Harneet