1 2025:CGHC:13249 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 535 of 2020 1 - Smt. Neelam Yadav W/o Late Amrish Kumar Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Baikunthpur, Behind Hetram Colony, P. S. And Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh 2 - Kumari Sakshi Yadav D/o Late Amrish Kumar Yadav Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Neelam Yadav, W/o Late Amrish Kumar Yadav, (Appellant No. 01), R/o Baikunthpur, Behind Hetram Colony, P. S. And Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Seeta Yadav W/o Late Birendra Yadav Aged About 55 Years R/o Baikunthpur, Behind Hetram Colony, P. S. And Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners Versus 1 - Smt. Kavita Patel W/o Late Pradeep Patel R/o Main Road Kondagaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh ..........Owner, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Dhansu Korami S/o Late Gagran Ram Korami Aged About 38 Years Occupation Driver R/o Kumharpara, Kondagaon, P. S. And District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh ......(Insurer), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Ramjan Ali S/o Noor Ali R/o Patharguda, Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh .........(Owner Of Bollero), District : Bastar (Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 5 - Ishwar Prasad S/o Lekha Ram Aged About 29 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Village Kapari, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Durg Chhattisgarh Permanent R/o Block Colony Dantewada, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh .........(Driver Of Bollero), District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 6 - Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Medical College Road, Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh ..........(Insurer Of Bollero Vehicle), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pravin Tulsiyan, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 20/03/2025 1. Notice sent to the Respondents No. 1, 2 & 4 returned unserved with a note “lockdown”. 2. As the liability to pay the amount of compensation is fastened upon the Respondent No. 6/Insurance Company, service of notice upon the Respondents No. 1, 2 & 4 is dispensed with. 3. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2020 which is an application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 6 opposses the pleading made in the application as also, the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant in I.A. No. 01/2020. 5. On due consideration of the submissions of counsel for the respective parties as also, the pleadings made in the application, delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 6. Appeal is admitted for hearing. 7. With the consent of parties, appeal is heard finally. 3 8. This appeal is filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 07.08.2019 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Baikunthpur, District – Korea in Claim Case No. 33/2019. 9. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 03.05.2013 at about 11:30 P.M., when the deceased i.e. Amrish Kumar Yadav was coming from Jagdalpur towards Raipur in a Mahindra Bolero SUV bearing Registration No. CG 17 D 0810 along with other fellow passengers, at that time when they reached near Village Lejoda, P.S. Kondagaon, the offending truck bearing Registration No. CG 17 AH 1426 which was driven by the Respondent No. 2 dashed the vehicle and caused serious injuries to Amrish Kumar Yadav and the other passengers. They were taken to District Hospital, Kondagaon and later on, during the course of treatment, Amrish Kumar Yadav succumbed to his injuries. Subsequent to the accident, a criminal case was lodged against the Respondent No. 2 under Section 279, 337, 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 10. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the motor accidental death of the late Amrish Kumar Yadav is not in dispute and the liability fastened upon the insurance company is also not in dispute. He submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is on lower side. The appellants who are the legal representatives of the deceased have filed this appeal submitting that the learned Claims Tribunal failed to award the amount of parental consortium and filial consortium to the Appellants No. 2 & 3 as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General 4 Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130. 11. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 6 opposes the submission made by the counsel for the appellant and would submit that the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper and the learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error while computing the award for grant of compensation and thus, the impugned award does not call for any interference. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused documents filed along with appeal. 13. The short question involved in this case is whether learned Claims Tribunal justified in not awarding parental and filial consortium to the minor child and mother of the deceased. 14. In Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, Hon'ble Apex Court in para No.21 to 25 has held as under: 21.A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses „spousal consortium‟, „parental consortium‟, and „filial consortium‟. The right to consortium would include the company care help comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse. 21.1.Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband wife which 5 allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, co-operation,affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation." 21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of"parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training." 21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit. 24.The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under "loss of consortium" as laid down in Pranay Sethi². In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial consortium.” 15. Thus, from perusal of the above it is apparent that parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents for loss of 'parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training'. Whereas, filial consortium is awarded to the parents who lose their child during their lifetime in a motor accident. 16. In the case at hand, perusal of the award would show that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards parental and filial consortium to the minor child of the deceased, for which they are 6 otherwise entitled as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma Insurance (supra). 17. Accordingly, it is directed that in addition to compensation already awarded by the Claims Tribunal, Appellant No.2, daughter of deceased, is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of parental consortium and Appellant No.3, mother of deceased, is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of filial consortium. This additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of application till its actual realization. Other condition of the award shall remain intact. 18. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. 19. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/-/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey