-1- 2025:CGHC:35531 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 255 of 2021 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Maruti Heights, 4th Floor, Mohba Bazaar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle Motor Cycle Platina No. C.G.-04/mc/1341) ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Smt. Padum Patel W/o Late Chittar Say Patel Aged About 43 Years 2 - Deepak Patel S/o Late Chittar Say Patel Aged About 25 Years 3 - Balendra Patel S/o Late Chittar Say Patel Aged About 20 Years All are R/o Village Sarekel, Thana And Tahsil Patewa, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 4 - Jitendra Sen S/o Suresh Sen Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Ghodari, Thana And Tahsil Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle Motor Cycle Platina No. C.G. 04/mc/1341) 5 - Khemraj Dhritlahare S/o Suklal Dhritlahare Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Bemcha, Thana And Tahsil Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle Motor Cycle Platina No. C.G. 04/mc/1341) ... Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Ms. Santoshi Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Utsav Mahishwar, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Kriplesh Kela, Advocate _______________________________________________________ Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.08.12 10:25:59 +0530 -2- S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 23/07/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) is filed by appellant-Insurance Company challenging the award dated 23.01.2021 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (CG) in Claim Case No.H- 57/2019 whereby claim application filed by respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants has been partly allowed. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before learned Claims Tribunal pleading therein that on 10-11-2018, Chittar Say Patel went to Jhalpa market on his bicycle. While returning to village Sarekel, on the way, driver of a motorcycle Platina No.-CG 04-MC-1341 dashed him from behind, due to which, he suffered serious injuries. He was taken to Government Hospital, Jhalap. As his condition was serious, he was referred to higher centre. He was admitted to Ambedkar Hospital Raipur, where he died during course of treatment on 11-11-2018. Before accident, deceased Chittar Say Patel was 45-year-old healthy person and was earning to Rs. 400/- (four hundred) per day by doing tailoring work. He was a skilled and experienced tailor. He was the only earning member of the family. Due to his sudden death, his family is facing severe financial problems, hence, after calculating the loss under various heads, claimants prayed for Rs. 35,80,000/- from non-applicants. -3- 3. Non-applicants No. 1 & 2 by filing their written statement have denied the pleadings made in the claim application and further pleaded that no accident occurred with motorcycle Platina No.CG 04-MC-1341 on 10- 11-2018, a false report has been lodged against them . Deceased met with accident due to his own negligence. Motorcycle Platina No. CG 04-MC-1341 was insured with non-applicant No.3/ insurance company on the date of accident and non-applicant No.1 had a valid, effective driving license to drive the vehicle, hence non-applicant No.3/insurance company is liable to pay amount of compensation. 4. Non-applicant No.3/ insurance company in its written statement denied the pleadings made in the claim application and pleaded that the conditions of insurance policy was violated. On the date of accident no FIR was lodged against motorcycle -Platina No.-CG 04-MC-1341 and the vehicle has been falsely implicated by lodging the report on 17- 01-2018, much after the date of accident. On the date of accident, non- applicant No.1 was driving the vehicle without there being valid and effective driving license, hence, the claim application against non- applicant No.3 be dismissed. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, caused accident, in which claimant Chittar Say suffered grievous injuries. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found proved, learned Claims Tribunal held non-applicants liable to pay the amount of compensation. Assessing income of the appellant/claimant as Rs.6000/- per month, -4- calculated amount of compensation under different heads, awarded total compensation of Rs.9,10,000/ -. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company would submit that involvement of the vehicle and its owner in the accident is an afterthought with a purpose to seek compensation by pleading false facts. She contended that in Ex.P-2 FIR, there is no mention of involvement of vehicle and report against offending vehicle and its owner/driver has been registered after delay of 69 days. Delay has not been properly explained and therefore case as set up by claimants is suspicious. Learned Claims Tribunal fell into error in not considering the aforementioned aspect in appropriate manner and allowed the claim application. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 to 3/claimants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of facts and evidence, rightly came to conclusion that deceased died in a motor accident occurred with the motorcycle bearing No. CG 04 MC 1341, computed and awarded amount of compensation. He however submits that compensation computed and awarded is much less and therefore cross-objection is filed seeking enhancement of amount of compensation on the ground that income of deceased is assessed less, Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation to all claimant under the head of ‘loss of consortium’. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that computation of compensation in the facts of the case is not warranted. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. -5- 10. The accident occurred on 10.11.2018. Immediately after the accident, injured Chittar Say was taken to the Government Hospital, Jhalap, for primary medical treatment. Given the severity of the injuries sustained by him, which were of fatal nature, he was taken to Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur, for intensive medical care. However, during course of his treatment at Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur, Chittar Say succumbed to his injuries on 11.11.2018. Pursuant to intimation submitted by Dr. Sanjeev Gupta, Emergency Treatment Officer at D.K.S. Super Specialty Hospital, Raipur, a morgue entry was recorded on 11.11.2018 at 06:40 a.m. by the Head Constable of Police Station, Gole Bazar, Raipur. The place of accident being within the jurisdiction of Police Station Patewa, District Mahasamund, morgue report was transmitted to the said police station. Upon receipt of report, morgue was duly registered by Police Station – Patewa under morgue No. 59 of 2018 on 14.11.2018 at 14:40 hours. Subsequent to the registration of morgue, an enquiry was conduced by the Police Station Patewa, and the First Information Report thereafter was registered on 17.01.2019. 11. In view of the above facts, contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the delay of 69 days in lodging the FIR casts doubt on the genuineness of the claim is devoid of merit. It is evident from the record that the FIR was not lodged based on any delayed complaint made. Rather, the registration of the FIR was a procedural consequence following the morgue inquiry, which had commenced immediately after the incident. The documents of criminal case available on record fully support this sequence of events and do not indicate any undue delay or suppression on the part of the claimants. -6- 12. Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 693 has considered the issue of delay in lodging FIR and has observed thus: “17. It is well settled that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the police station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the police station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. x x x 19. Lodging of FIR certainly proves the factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be a variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgement of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquillity of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons. -7- 13. In the aforementioned facts of case as also decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badrinarayan (supra), I do not find any substance in submission of learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company that learned Claims Tribunal fell into error in admitting claim case overlooking the period of delay of 69 days in lodging FIR. 14. For the foregoing discussions, appeal filed by appellant- Insurance Company is not having any merit. Same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 15. Now I will consider the ground raised by learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3/claimants in cross -objection. 16. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants made twofold submission seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. His first submission is that income assessed by learned Claims Tribunal is on lower side and second that Tribunal has not awarded amount of compensation to all the claimants under the head of ‘loss of consortium’. 17. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the claimants with regard to assessment of income on lower side is concerned, perusal of record of claim case would show that learned Claims Tribunal assessed income of the deceased as Rs.6000/- per month on notional basis. In the claim application, claimants have pleaded, occupation of deceased to be engaged in tailoring work and earing Rs.400/- per day (Rs.12,000/- per month). True it is that claimants have failed to prove -8- income of deceased by placing admissible evidence, however, in absence of admissible evidence, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of deceased considering the factors like cost of living, price index, wage structure and could have also considered minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act for ‘unskilled labourer’ prevailing on the date of accident. 18. For the purpose of assessing income of deceased on notional basis in absence of any specific evidence, this Court finds it appropriate to take help of the Notification issued by the Commissioner-cum- Competent Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. In the Notification for ‘class-C zone/area’ monthly wages for ‘unskilled labourer’ for the period from 01.10.2018 to 31.03.2019, has been fixed as Rs.8140/- per month. Hence, looking to the date of accident i.e. 10.11.2018, income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.8140/- per month instead of Rs.6000/- per month as held by learned Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. 19. Learned Claims Tribunal, looking to the age of the deceased on the date of accident in between 41 to 45 years, has rightly added 25% of the assessed income towards future prospects, deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses of deceased is correct, application of multiplier of 14 is also correct and to the tune of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121. -9- 20. Learned Claims Tribunal further awarded Rs.15,000/- each under the head of ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’ and Rs.40,000/- towards ‘loss of consortium’. 21. Award under the head of ‘loss of consortium’ has been quantified by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680. Further types of consortium is explained in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130 and it is held that husband/wife will be entitled for loss of ‘spousal consortium’, children will be entitled for loss of ‘parental consortium’ and parents will be entitled for loss of ‘filial consortium’ of Rs.40,000/- each. In the case at hand claimant No.1 is widow, claimants No. 2 & 3 are children of deceased – Chittar Say Patel. Claimant No.1 being wife of deceased is entitled to get Rs.40,000/- towards loss of ‘spousal consortium’ and claimants No. 2 & 3 being children of deceased are entitled to get Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium. 22. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has further observed that compensation under the head of other conventional heads is to be enhanced by 10% in every three years and, therefore, compensation of Rs.15,000/- awarded under the head of ‘loss of estate’, ‘funeral expenses’ and Rs.40,000/- under the head ‘loss of consortium’ to claimants No. 1 to 3 has to be enhanced by 10% and it will be Rs.16,500/-, Rs.16,500/- and Rs.1,32,000/- (44,000 x 3) respectively. 23. For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the -10- amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. (A) Loss of Income/dependency 8140 x 12 = 97680 (B) Addition towards future prospects @ 25% (97680 x 25% =24420) 97680+ 24420 = 1,22,100 (C) Deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses (1,22,100 x 1/3= 40700) 1,22,100 - 40700 =81,400/- (D) Multiplier of 14 81,400 x 14= 11,39,600 : Rs. 11,39,600 2. Funeral Expenses : (+) Rs. 16,500 3. Loss of Estate : (+) Rs. 16,500 4. Spousal Consortium to claimant No.1 (wife) (40,000 x 10 % =44,000) : (+) Rs. 44,000 5. Loss of parental consortium to claimants No. 2 & 3 (children) of 44,000/- each (40,000 x 10 % =44,000) (44,000 x 2 =88,000) (+) Rs. 88,000 Total compensation Rs. 13,04,600 24. Now respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs. 13,04,600/- instead of Rs.9,10,100/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 25. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which is now been -11- calculated and awarded by this Court. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 26. In the result, appeal filed by Insurance Company is dismissed and cross-objection filed by respondents No.1 to 3/claimants is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein above. Sd/-- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen