1 2026:CGHC:20462 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 636 of 2020 1 - Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited Through Legal Manager, Now Current Address 205, 2nd Floor, M.M. Silver Plaza, Infront Of Udyog Bhawan, Near Mining Office, Ring Road No.1, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Gopiram Patel S/o Sant Kumar Patel Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Bartikhurd, Chowki And Tahsil Wardraf Nagar, Police Station Basantpur, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver), 2 - Sanjay Kumar Patel S/o Ramanuj Kumar Patel Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Bartikhurd, Chowki And Tahsil Wadraf Nagar, Police Station Basantpur, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner), 3 - Shivdas S/o Nepal Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Dhumadhad, Police Station Chandaura, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Shivkumar S/o Nepal Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Dhumadhad, Police Station Chandaura, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Devkumar S/o Nepal Aged About 16 Years R/o Village Dhumadhad, KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.05.02 11:46:24 +0530 2 Police Station Chandaura, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. PR Patankar, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Abhinav Dubey on behalf of Mr. Apoorva Tripathi, Advocate. (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 01/05/2026 1. The appellant/Insurance Company has preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act, 1988’) calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the award dated 1.11.2019 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratappur, District Surajpur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.91/2018 by which liability to pay compensation of Rs.6,60,000/- has been fastened on the appellant/Insurance Company as also on the respondents No.1 & 2, who are the driver and owner respectively. By the impugned award, the Insurance Company was directed to first pay and then to recover from owner and driver of the vehicle. 2. Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the deceased was pillion rider on the motorcycle and the premium was paid towards third party only and, therefore, the Insurance Company could not be directed to 3 first pay and thereafter recover from the owner and driver, as the policy was act only policy. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Abhinav Dubey, learned counsel for respondent No.1 & 2 would support the impugned award. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. The aforesaid issue is no longer res integra, as the same has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunita and Others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Others1 wherein the following has been observed at paras-11 to 13:- “11.Then, the question which would arise is as to whether the liability could have been fastened upon the Insurer or not. In our considered view, not so, solely for the reason that the risk stood not covered, as no premium was paid. 12. The next question which arises for our consideration is whether the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the compensation amount to the claimant-appellant and, thereafter, recover the same from the driver and owner of the vehicle. 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”. 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1464 4 6. In view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the principle of “pay and recover” would also apply in the case of “Liability Only Policy”. In the case at hand, the principle of “Pay and Recover” has been applied, though the policy was act only policy. 7. For the foregoing, I do not find any merit in this Appeal, which deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Barve