-1- 2025:CGHC:2337 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 533 of 2023 1 - Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Raigarh, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Insurer) ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Leena @ Meena Patel, Wd/o. Late Dolnarayan, Aged About 48 Years All R/o. Village Sapos, Police Station And Tahsil Dabhra, District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh 2 - Himanshu Patel, S/o. Late Dolnarayan Patel, Aged About 18 Years All R/o. Village Sapos, Police Station And Tahsil Dabhra, District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Hemlata Patel, D/o. Late Dolnarayan Patel, Aged About 23 Years All R/o. Village Sapos, Police Station And Tahsil Dabhra, District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh (Claimants) 4 - Vishwanath Singh Patel, Kanhaiyalal Patel, Aged About 22 Years R/o. Village Khutadarha, Police Stations Barawar, District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle) (Non-Applicant No.2) 5 - Arun Kumar Chandra, S/o. Babulal Chandra, Aged About 29 Years R/o. Village Achritpali, Police Station Malkharoda, District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle) (Non-Applicant No.2) ... Respondents For Appellant/Insurance Company : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Ravikar Patel, Advocate For Respondents No.4 & 5 : Mr. Ajay Kumar Chandra, Advocate Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 14.01.2025 1) Heard. 2) The appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 13.12.2022 passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 33/2018 whereby the compensation to the tune of Rs.48,03,729/- with interest @ 6% has been awarded in favour of the claimants. 3) Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that on account of the death of Dolnarayan Patel, who died in a road accident on 20.11.2017, the claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.82,78,404/-. It is stated that the offending vehicle i.e. pick up bearing registration No.C.G.-04-JD-3273 which was being driven by respondent No.4 rashly and negligently dashed the deceased. Consequently, he sustained serious injuries; he was taken to the hospital and during the course of the treatment, he died. The matter was reported to the Police Station Chakradhar Nagar. It is pleaded that at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased was 48 years and he was earning Rs.35,759/- per month as he was working on the post of Assistant Grade-II in the School Education Department. The driver, owner as well as the Insurance Company filed their reply and denied the averments made in the application. The parties led evidence. -3- 4) Learned Claims Tribunal found the age of the deceased to be 48 years; assessed the monthly income to Rs.35,759/-; deducted 1/3rd for personal expenses and applied a multiplier of 13 looking to the age of the deceased and assessed compensation to the tune of Rs.48,03,729/-. 5) Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that an FIR was lodged on 03.01.2018 after two months. She would further submit that the FIR was registered against an unknown vehicle. She would contend that the registered owner of the vehicle was Arvind Jaiswal and he was not arrayed as a party. She would further contend that the claimants failed to prove the accident and involvement of the offending vehicle and thus, the learned Claims Tribunal wrongly fastened liability with the Insurance Company. 6) Mr. Patel, the learned counsel appearing for the Claimants would submit that the claimants have filed a cross appeal for enhancement of compensation. He would fairly submit that for loss of consortium, the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation to claimants No.2 & 3 which requires indulgence. 7) Mr. Chandra, the learned counsel appearing for the driver and owner would submit that the vehicle was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. 8) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 9) Ex.P/3 morgue intimation was lodged on 20.11.2017 one month after the -4- accident. The matter was investigated by the Police and later on, the offending vehicle was seized. As the accident was caused by an unknown vehicle, no report was lodged by the claimants thus the contention made by Ms. Agrawal cannot be accepted that as the FIR was registered after two months, the learned Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim case filed by the claimants. 10) The vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company could not demonstrate that there was any breach of conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal rightly fastened liability with the Insurance Company and the contention in this regard is misconceived. 11)With regard to payment of compensation on conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium to claimants No.2 & 3, admittedly, claimants No.2 & 3 are children of the deceased and claimant No.1 is the wife. The learned Tribunal has not assigned any reason for non-payment of compensation on conventional heads to claimants No.2 & 3. 12)Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, claimants No.2 & 3 shall be entitled to get Rs.40,000/- each on the head of loss of consortium. The total amount would be Rs.80,000/-. According to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) after the expiry of three years, the amount has to be increased by 10%. The judgment was rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme -5- Court in the year 2017 and after a lapse of 6 years, the amount would be increased by 20% and the total amount would be Rs.96,000/-. Thus, the enhanced amount of compensation payable to claimants No.2 & 3 shall be Rs.96,000/-. 13)Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is hereby dismissed. The cross appeal filed by claimants No.1 & 2 is partly allowed and the compensation is enhanced to the tune of Rs.96,000/-. Claimants No.1 & 2 shall be entitled to receive an additional amount of Rs.96,000/- which shall carry interest @ 6% from the date of application till the date of its realization. The rest part of the award passed by the learned Tribunal shall remain intact. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha