1 MAC No. 1140 of 2020 2026:CGHC:21947 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1140 of 2020  IFFCO - TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. Near ICICI Bank, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1. Roopa Kesri W/o Umakant Kesri Aged About 53 Years, R/o Ward No. 32, Behind Lal Chandani Hospital, Jagman Chowk, Shivaji Marg, Tikrapara, P.S. City Kotwali, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2. Umakant Kesri S/o Ghanshyam Kesri, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Ward No. 32, Behind Lal Chandani Hospital, Jagman Chowk, Shivaji Marg, Tikrapara, P.S. City Kotwali, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3. Lalit Wahane S/o Gulab Rao Wahane, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Ambedkar Nagar, Behind Petrol Pump, Mungeli, P.S. Mungeli, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 4. Shrikant Govardhan S/o V.K. Goverdhan, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Maharana Pratap Ward, Pendrakapa, P.S. Mungeli, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant :- Ms. Shrejal Gupta, Advocate, appears on behalf of Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2 :- Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 :- Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocate. ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH 2 MAC No. 1140 of 2020 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 11.05.2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company, against the impugned award dated 07.01.2020 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 365/2018 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the claimants’ application and awarded a sum of ₹29,02,501/- as compensation along with interest for death of Nilesh Kesri, whereas, the cross objection has been filed by the claimants/respondents No.1 & 2 herein, against the said impugned award seeking enhancement in the compensation amount. 2. Ms. Shrejal Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company, would submit that the award is on higher side as the un-exhibited document relates to Income Tax Return for the year of 2010-11, has been made the basis for assessing the income of the deceased which should not have been taken as it has not been proved in accordance with law. Further amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is not required to be enhanced and, therefore, the cross objection of the claimants deserves to be dismissed. 3 MAC No. 1140 of 2020 3. Mr. A.L. Singrouol, learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2/claimants, would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the present cases. He would also submit that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded the amount under the head of parental consortium, which is liable to be awarded to the tune of ₹80,000/-. Therefore, the cross objection filed by the claimants be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 4. Mr. Vivek Bhakta, learned counsel for respondent No.3/driver of the vehicle, would submit that the driver is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the records meticulously. 6. Admittedly, the accident occurred on 09.04.2018 and at that time for assessing the income of the deceased the Claims Tribunal has made the basis of Income Tax Return of 2010-11 (unexhibited document) as proof of monthly income of the deceased and on account of which the monthly income of the deceased was to the tune of ₹15,000/- per month at that time and added ₹5,000/- while granting the award as increased income for last 8 years i.e. from 2010 to 2018, meaning thereby ₹20,000/- has been taken as 4 MAC No. 1140 of 2020 monthly income of the deceased at the time of accident i.e. 09.04.2018, which appears to be correct and not in higher side for the period of 8 years as the deceased was the Director of Nilesh Industries. 7. Furthermore, parental consortium has not been awarded by the Claims Tribunal to the claimants while granting award which in my considered opinion is liable to be awarded in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors1. In that view of the matter, the claimants/respondents No.1 & 2 are entitled for ₹80,000/- under the head of parental consortium. Hence, the claimants are held to be entitled to an additional amount to the tune of ₹80,000/- in addition to ₹29,02,501/- which has already been granted by the Claims Tribunal. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court i.e. ₹80,000/- 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. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 8. Accordingly, the appeal of the Insurance Company is dismissed and the cross objection of the claimants/respondents No.1 & 2 1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 5 MAC No. 1140 of 2020 herein is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit