-1- 2025:CGHC:13527 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 682 of 2020 1 - Chandra Prasad Choudhri S/o Tahalu Choudhri Aged About 50 Years 2 - Usharani Devi Choudhri W/o Chandra Prasad Choudhri Aged About 49 Years 3 - Anil Kumar Choudhri S/o Chandra Prasad Choudhri Aged About 24 Years All the appellants are R/o K - 21/5, Telco Colony, Double Road, Jamshedpur 831004, P.O. Telco Workers, P.S. Telco, District Jamshedpur (Jharkhand). ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Vijay Kumar Padhi Permanent R/o Sonabeda, Koraput, District Koraput (Odisha) At Present R/o Through Shyam Bihari Tiwari, Near J.K. Wire, Mixture Factory Aamanaka Raipur, P.S. Aamanaka, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Motorcycle No. C.G. 04-C.T. – 8257) 2 - I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through In Charge Officer I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vanijya Bhawan, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur, P.S. Devendra Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Motorcycle No. C.G. - 04- C.T. - 8257) ... Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Chitram Sahu, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.03.26 10:03:35 +0530 -2- 21/03/2025 1. Notice issued to respondent No.1 is reported to be un-served due to ‘incomplete address’. 2. As the liability fastened upon respondent No.2/Insurance Company to pay amount of compensation is not disputed by learned counsel for respondent No.2, service of notice upon respondent No. 1 is dispensed with. 3. Heard on IA No.1 which is an application for condonation of delay in filing this appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/Insurance Company opposes the pleadings made by learned counsel for the appellants and submits that there is no satisfactory explanation offered by the appellants for inordinate delay of 466 days in filing this appeal. 5. On due consideration of the grounds pleaded in the application and the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, IA No.1 is allowed. Delay in filing this appeal is hereby condoned. 6. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, this appeal is heard finally. 7. Challenge in this appeal is to award dated 12.10.2018 passed by learned Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) in Claim Case No.68 of 2015 whereby learned Claims Tribunal partly allowed the application filed by the appellants/claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) -3- and awarded them total compensation of Rs.15,69,000/- in a fatal accident case. 8. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/applicants/claimants filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Act against the respondent/non-applicants, pleading therein that on 07.04.2012, deceased Santosh Kumar Chaudhari was traveling on a motor cycle bearing registration number CG 04/CT/8257 along with Sujit Pani, son of non-applicant No.1. The said vehicle was being driven by Sujit Pani and Santosh Kumar Chaudhari was pillion rider. Due to rash and negligent driving by Sujit Pani, the front tyre of the motorcycle burst and the motorcycle lost balance and after hitting the road divider, it hit the fencing wire on the roadside. In the accident, Santosh Kumar Chaudhari who was pillion rider on the said motorcycle, sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot and the driver also died on the spot. On the date of accident, the offending vehicle was driven rashly and negligently by Sujit Pani, son of non-applicant No.1. The registered owner of the said vehicle was the driver Sujit Pani, who died in the accident. The offending vehicle was insured with non- applicant No.2/Insurance Company. At the time of the accident, the deceased Santosh Kumar Chaudhari was 26 years old. He was working as a Supervisor in J.K. Tyres and Industries and earning Rs.16,000/- per month. It was pleaded that the applicants/claimants are the legal heirs of deceased Santosh Kumar Chaudhari and they were completely dependent on his income. His death has caused irreparable loss to his family, therefore, they prayed for awarding of -4- compensation of Rs. 52,84,000/- from the respondents/non- applicants. 9. Non-applicant No.1 has been proceeded ex parte in the proceedings, no written statement has been submitted on his behalf. 10. Non-applicant No. 2/ ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company has opposed the claim by submitting its written statement wherein it was pleaded that on the date of the alleged accident, the driver of the motorcycle No. CG 04/CT/8257 was driving the vehicle without a valid and effective license in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act and the basic conditions of the insurance policy. Since the vehicle was being driven in violation of the insurance conditions, non- applicant No.2 is not liable for any compensation. The deceased in question was sitting behind on the motorcycle, therefore, his risk is not covered under the insurance policy, therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased are not entitled to receive compensation. The accident in question occurred due to mechanical fault of the vehicle. The said accident occurred due to the owner of the vehicle for not taking proper care of the motorcycle, therefore, the compensation amount cannot be recovered from non-applicant No.2. The owner of the motorcycle has died. There is no direct contract executed between applicant No.1 and the insurance company and neither has the insurance policy in question been transferred in the name of appellant No.1. Exaggerated statements have been made regarding the income of the deceased. The compensation has been assessed -5- arbitrarily. It was prayed that non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company may be exonerated from the responsibility of paying compensation as non-applicant No.2 has no contractual responsibility towards appellant No.1 and the vehicle was driven in violation of the insurance conditions. 11. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of incident, the offending vehicle was being driven by son of non- applicant No.1 rashly and negligently due to which motorcycle went off the road and collied with the divider. In the said incident, Santosh Kumar Choudhari who was pillion rider sustained grievous injury and succumbed to death. Breach of insurance policy conditions were not found to be proved. Assessing annual income of the deceased as Rs.1,14,000/- (Rs.9,500/- per month), calculated and awarded total amount of compensation of Rs.15,69,000/ -. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants as also counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company jointly submit that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence adduced by appellants/claimants regarding income from salary of deceased and accepted by learned Claims Tribunal on the basis of salary slips placed in evidence as Ex.P-12 to Ex.P-14 is not disputed, the only question which is raised and to be answered in this appeal is whether the learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding the amount towards filial consortium to the appellants/claimants in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma -6- General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 14. In the case at hand, no disputed facts are involved. Appellant/claimants in their claim application pleaded that the deceased was working as Supervisor in J.K.Tyre and Industries Ltd. as permanent employee and was earning Rs. 16,000/- per month. However, in the evidence based on salary slips, income of the deceased is proved by the appellants/claimants as Rs.9500/- per month. Income proved by placing salary slips has been accepted by learned Claims Tribunal and based upon which amount of compensation is computed. Income as assessed by learned Claims Tribunal based on documentary evidence is not in dispute. Addition of the amount under future prospects and multiplier applied for loss of dependency by the Tribunal is also not in dispute. Hence, the amount of compensation is computed and awarded by learned Claims Tribunal as Rs.15,69,000/- does not call for any interference. However, from the amount of award calculated and computed as also compensation granted would show that learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded filial consortium to appellants No. 1 & 2 being parents of the deceased. According to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram (supra) the parents are entitled for filial consortium against the loss suffered by them due to death of their son and, therefore, this Court finds it -7- appropriate to award Rs.40,000/- to appellant/claimants No. 1 & 2 each towards loss of filial consortium. Thus, in addition to the amount of compensation of Rs.15,69,000/- already awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal, claimants/ appellants No. 1 & 2 are also entitled for additional compensation of Rs. 80,000/- (40,000 + 40,000). Now the appellants/claimants are awarded the total compensation of Rs.16,49,000/- (15,69,000 + 80,000) . 15. The amount of Rs.80,000/- which is now being awarded additionally shall carry interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated by this Court. Other conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 16.In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein above. Sd/-/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen