MAC/1933/2018 of URMILA BAI MANIKPURI Vs GIRJA SHANKAR GUPTA on 23 August 2026

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the Claimants challenging the impugned award dt. 11.10.2018, passed by the learned Claims Tribunal seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation and direction for pay and recovery.

2. Learned counsel for the Claimants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in not applying the principle of pay and recovery under the facts and circumstances of the present case despite holding that the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of the policy condition (i.e. without valid and effective permit). He would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Amrit Paul Singh and another v. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others 1 to bolster his submissions. He further submits that just and proper compensation has also not bee awarded in the present, therefore, the same is also liable to be enhanced suitably. As such, the impugned award is liable to be modified to that extent.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company would support the impugned order by opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the Claimants and prays for dismissal of both the appeals.

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. So far the plea of the Claimants that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in not applying the principle of pay and recovery under the facts and circumstances of the present case is concerned, the Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh (supra) has clearly held that use of vehicle in absence of permit is fundamental breach of the policy condition and applied the principle of pay and recovery and observed in Para-24 as under: “24. In the case at hand, it is clearly demonstrable from the materials brought on record that the vehicle at the time of the accident did not have a permit. The appellants had taken the stand that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. That apart, they had not stated whether the vehicle had temporary permit or any other kind of permit. The exceptions that have been carved out under Section 66 of the Act, needless to emphasise, are to be pleaded and proved. The exceptions cannot be taken aid of in the course of an argument to seek absolution from liability. Use

(2018) 7 SCC 558

of a vehicle in a public place without a permit is a fundamental statutory infraction. We are disposed to think so in view of the series of exceptions carved out in Section

66. The said situations cannot be equated with absence of licence or a fake licence or a licence for different kind of vehicle, or, for that matter, violation of a condition of carrying more number of passengers. Therefore, the principles laid down in Swaran Singh [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] and Lakhmi Chand [Lakhmi Chand v. Reliance General Insurance, (2016) 3 SCC 100 : (2016) 2 SCC (Civ) 45] in that regard would not be applicable to the case at hand. That apart, the insurer had taken the plea that the vehicle in question had no permit. It does not require the wisdom of the “Tripitaka”, that the existence of a permit of any nature is a matter of documentary evidence. Nothing has been brought on record by the insured to prove that he had a permit of the vehicle. In such a situation, the onus cannot be cast on the insurer. Therefore, the Tribunal as well as the High Court had directed that the insurer was required to pay the compensation amount to the claimants with interest with the stipulation that the insurer shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner and the driver. The said directions are in consonance with the principles stated in Swaran Singh [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] and other cases pertaining to pay and recover principle.”

6. In the present case also, admittedly, the offending vehicle was being plied in terms of the policy condition (i.e. without valid and effective permit) on the date and time of the accident and, therefore, in light of the decision of Amrit Paul Singh (supra) it would be expedient to direct the Insurance Company to firstly pay the entire amount of compensation along with interest to the claimants within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and, thereafter, recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle. It is ordered accordingly.

7. The next plea that just and proper compensation has not been awarded, true it is that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.4500/- which should be Rs.6100/- per month as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. Further, Claims Tribunal also erred in not calculating the any amount on the head of future prospect and even less amount has been awarded on other conventional heads. As such, in the considered opinion of this Court, to that extent 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 2, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors3 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram &

Ors

4 , this Court is computing the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the claimant, as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court

1. Income Rs.4500/- x 12 = Rs.54,000/- Rs.6100/- x 12 = Rs.73200/-

2. Future prospect NIL (+)

25% (i.e.Rs.18,300/-) = Rs.73,200/-

3. Deduction (-)

(i.e. Rs.13,500/-)

= Rs.40,500/- (-)

(i.e. Rs.22,875/-) = Rs.68,625/-

4. Multiplier

(x) = Rs.5,67,000/-

(x) = Rs.9,60,750/-

5. Loss of Estate Rs.5,000/- Rs.15,000/-

6. Funeral Express Rs.5,000/- Rs.15,000/-

(2017) 16 SCC 680

(2009) 6 SCC 121

(2018) 18 SCC 130

7. Loss of consortium Rs.10,000/- Rs.2,40,000/- Total Rs.5,87,000/- Rs.12,30,750/-

9. In view of the foregoing analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.5,87,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.12,30,750/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.5,87,000/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.6,43,750/-. 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 @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Further, in light of decision of Amrit Pal Singh (supra) by adopting the doctrine of pay and recover, it is ordered 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 the owner of the offending vehicle. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

10. With aforesaid direction and modification in the impugned award, this appeal stands finally disposed of. No cost.

Sd/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal)

Judge s@if