1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 659 of 2019 1 - Smt. Priyanka Joshi W/o Late Deelip Joshi Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Ghodhapara Post Barampur Thana- Lalpur, Tahsil-Lormi, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Samikhsa D/o Late Deelip Joshi Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Priyanka Joshi Cost- Satnami, R/o Village Ghodhapara Post Barampur Thana- Lalpur, Tahsil-Lormi, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3 - Devesh S/o Late Deelip Joshi Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Priyanka Joshi Cost- Satnami, R/o Village Ghodhapara Post Barampur Thana- Lalpur, Tahsil-Lormi, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Tashmin D/o Late Deelip Joshi Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Priyanka Joshi Cost- Satnami, R/o Village Ghodhapara Post Barampur Thana- Lalpur, Tahsil-Lormi, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 5 - Gulabi @ Ramchandra S/o Late Inderman Joshi Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Ghodhapara Post Barampur Thana- Lalpur, Tahsil-Lormi, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 6 - Koushilya Bai W/o Gulabi @ Ramchandra Soshi Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Ghodhapara Post Barampur Thana- Lalpur, Tahsil-Lormi, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.........(Claimants), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Rupesh Kumar S/o Naval Kumar Sonwani Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Vicharpur Post Manoharpur, Tahsil Lormi District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.................(Driver Of The Offending Vehicle No.C.G.10/f.A./1264)..............(Driver), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2 - Rohit Kumar S/o Shyam Kartik Patre Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Vicharpur Post Manoharpur Tahsil Lormi District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh...............(Owner Of The Offending Vehicle No. C.G. 10/f.A./1264).............(Owner), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3 - Iffco Tokiyo Genral Insurance Company Limited 1st Floor Galaxy Heights Byapar Vihar Road Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh...........(Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle No. C.G.10/f.A./1254)..............(Insurer), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Manoj Kumar Sahu S/o Hernraj Sahu R/o Village Daupara Munngeli District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh...........(Owner), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.09.09 18:05:40 +0530 2 For Appellants : Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul with Ms. Shalini Jangde, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. P. R. Patankar with Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board 04.09.2025 1) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) has been filed by the appellants/claimants, being aggrieved by the award dated 16.11.2018 passed by the Additional Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli (C.G.) (for short ‘learned Tribunal’) in Claim Case No. 19/2018. 2) By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 19,19,282/- to the appellants/claimants, on account of the death of deceased/ Dileep Joshi in an accident that took place on 03.01.2018 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Maruti Van) bearing Registration No. CG-10-FA-1264 by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3/Insurance company. As a result of the said accident, the deceased died in hospital during treatment. 3) As per the pleadings, the deceased/ Dileep Joshi was aged about 39 years and was a skilled driver and earning a monthly income of Rs. 9,000/- and Rs. 100/- per day diet allowances. The appellants/claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased. 4) The respondent No. 1 & 2 filed their written statement and denied the averment of the facts. Respondent No.3 /Insurance company in usual course, denied the averments of the claim application and pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence and there is a violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. 3 5) On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed 5 issues and after appreciating the material available on record decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded above stated compensation. 6) Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the compensation awarded is on the lower side and that no proper amount towards consortium has been granted. It is therefore prayed that suitable enhancement may be made by this Court. 7) Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 on the other hand, supports the impugned award and submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly relied upon the salary certificate of the deceased, which indicates that his monthly salary was Rs. 9,000/-. However, since Rs. 100/- was being spent by the deceased as diet money during the course of his employment, the same cannot be added to his salary. 8) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records. 9) The learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs. 9,000/-, excluding Rs. 100/- shown in the salary slip as diet allowance. Since the said amount was being paid to the deceased for his diet expenses during the course of employment as a driver, it cannot be added to his monthly income. The Tribunal has further deducted one-fourth towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The assessment so made is in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, and appears to be reasonable and correct. 10) However, the learned Tribunal failed to award filial and parental consortium to appellant Nos. 2 to 6, despite the clear law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme 4 Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130. The Tribunal has rightly added 40% towards future prospects and has also awarded Rs. 70,000/- under the conventional heads of spousal consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate. 11) Accordingly, this Court considers it just and proper to award a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each to appellant Nos. 2 to 6 towards filial and parental consortium, thereby granting a total of Rs. 2,40,000/- under this head, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. 12) The respondent No. 3 insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days. On such deposit being made, the learned Tribunal shall pass an appropriate order with regard to apportionment, investment and disbursement of enhanced amount to appellants/claimants Nos. 2 to 6. 13) Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari