The Chhattisgarh High Court clarifies that where a “Liability Only” insurance policy exists but no additional premium has been paid to cover a pillion rider, the insurer must first pay the compensation due to claimants and may then recover the sum from the vehicle owner/driver. This judgment follows Supreme Court precedent and reinforces its application to motor accident claims in Chhattisgarh, strengthening binding authority for similar cases.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | MAC/613/2024 of SONIYA BAI SATNAMI Vs VIJAY TANDON |
| CNR | CGHC010102482024 |
| Date of Registration | 22-03-2024 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OFF |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Single Bench (Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms and follows Supreme Court judgments, specifically Sunita & Ors v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1464) |
| Type of Law | Motor Vehicles Act (Compensation, Insurance Coverage, Civil Law) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that where a “Liability Only Policy” covers the vehicle but no premium is paid to cover the risk for a pillion rider, the insurer must indemnify the compensation amount to the claimants and is entitled to recover the same from the owner/driver. This flows from settled Supreme Court precedent, including Sunita (2025), Baljit Kaur (2004), and related cases, establishing the “pay and recover” principle for such scenarios. The court also clarified that notional monthly income for skilled labour should be fixed as per notified minimum wages when actual income is not proven. The compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal was accordingly recalculated and enhanced on this basis. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The principle of “pay and recover” in cases where the insurer was not paid premium for covering a category such as pillion rider, as expounded by the Supreme Court. Application of statutory minimum wages for computation of notional income under the Motor Vehicles Act. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The deceased, a pillion rider, died after a motorcycle accident caused by rash and negligent driving by the owner/driver. Vehicle had a “Liability Only” insurance policy with no premium for pillion rider risk. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation but fastened liability on the owner/driver, not the insurer, and calculated notional income below minimum wages; both aspects were challenged in appeal. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh; Motor Accident Claims Tribunals within the state. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and Tribunals dealing with “Liability Only” motor policies; legal practitioners across India in motor vehicle accident compensation matters. |
| Follows | Sunita & Ors v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1464); National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur (2004) 2 SCC 1; related Supreme Court precedents. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Affirms that the “pay and recover” principle is mandatory in cases where the insurer issued a “Liability Only” policy and the risk to the pillion rider is not covered by an extra premium.
- Clarifies that notional monthly income for skilled labour must be fixed at rates notified under minimum wage laws if no direct income proof is led.
- Loss of consortium and other conventional heads are to be calculated as per established precedent with the principal enhancement limited to the income calculation.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court examined the facts: The deceased was a pillion rider on a motorcycle insured under a “Liability Only” policy with no premium for pillion risks.
- Relied extensively on the Supreme Court’s Sunita (2025) decision and prior cases (e.g., Baljit Kaur, Anu Bhanvara, Amrit Lal Sood), underlining the insurer’s obligation to pay the claim immediately and then recover from the owner/driver.
- Assessed whether the Claims Tribunal erred in fixing deceased’s notional monthly income below the minimum wage: held that income should have been computed as per minimum wage applicable to skilled labour in Chhattisgarh during the relevant period.
- Re-computed the compensation accordingly, following multiplier method and conventional heads as in Supreme Court guidelines.
- Directed the insurer to pay enhanced compensation to claimants and recover from the owner/driver, applying the “pay and recover” principle.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants/Claimants):
- Deceased died due to rash/negligent driving by owner/driver, was a skilled mason; income should be as per minimum wages.
- Tribunal erred in not directing insurer to pay, especially when claim is under the “pay and recover” principle outlined in Sunita (2025).
- Sought enhancement of compensation in line with actual minimum wage rates for the relevant period.
Respondent No. 2 (Insurance Company):
- Liability properly fastened on owner/driver as per Tribunal, since policy did not cover pillion rider.
- Compensation already just and appropriate. No further liability should be placed on insurer; appeal should be dismissed.
Respondent No. 1 (Owner/Driver):
- Not represented despite service.
Factual Background
The case concerned the death of a pillion rider, Ramkrishna, after a motorcycle accident allegedly caused by rash and negligent driving by the owner/driver. The motorcycle was covered by a “Liability Only” insurance policy without any additional premium to cover a pillion rider. The original Compensation Tribunal held the owner/driver liable and awarded compensation, but assessed the deceased’s notional income below prevailing minimum wages. The claimants appealed for both enhancement and for shifting liability to the insurer under the “pay and recover” rule.
Statutory Analysis
- Main provision: Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (claims for compensation).
- Section 173 (appeal provision) invoked.
- Insurance policy interpreted as “Liability Only”—no premium paid for pillion/occupant risk.
- Minimum Wages Act relied upon to determine notional income for skilled labour in event of no actual proof.
- The court applied Supreme Court precedent to construe “pay and recover” procedure as binding, overriding technicalities in the insurance contract.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions reported in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No procedural innovations discussed or introduced in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Supreme Court’s “pay and recover” principle is affirmed and clarified for application in state tribunals of Chhattisgarh.