Page No.1 2025:CGHC:15250 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 815 of 2020 1. Smt. Rukhmani Devi Wife Of Late Pardeshi Ram Kenwat Aged About 48 Years Resident Of Mangaon, Laxman Nagar, Tahsil-Katghora, District-Korba Chhattisgarh. 2. Vimalkant Son Of Late Pardeshiram Kenwat Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Mangaon, Laxman Nagar, Tahsil- Katghora, District-Korba Chhattisgarh. 3. Neelkanth Son Of Late Pardeshiram Aged About 28 Years Resident Of Mangaon, Laxman Nagar, Tahsil-Katghora, District-Korba Chhattisgarh. 4. Mohitram Son Of Late Jageshwar Aged About 72 Years Resident Of Mangaon, Laxman Nagar, Tahsil-Katghora, District-Korba Chhattisgarh. 5. Smt Dujbai Wife Of Mohitram Aged About 70 Years Resident Of Mangaon, Laxman Nagar, Tahsil-Katghora, District-Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1. Ameer Das Son Of Santuram Aged About 36 Years Resident of Chunchuni, Gevra, Korba, Tahsil & District Korba (CG. 2. Prithvi Rikal Transporter Private Limited Director-Santosh Singh Aged About 36 Years Son Of Late Rup Singh, Resident of In Front of Shahri Park, Kanshinagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District-Raipur Chhattisgarh. NISHA DUBEY Digitally signed by NISHA DUBEY Date: 2025.04.08 10:22:14 +0530 Page No.2 3. H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company Limited Raipur Office-Devendra Nagar Tiraha, Commercial Building Raipur, District-Raipur Chhattisgarh. .. Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate For Respondent No.1 & 2 : None. For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Priya Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. N.K. Thakur, Adv. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 01/04/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.1, which is an application for condonation of delay of 339 days in filing this appeal. 2. On due consideration of submissions of counsel for respective parties and the reasons assigned in the application, it is allowed. Delay in preferring this appeal is hereby condoned. 3. There is no dispute regarding the accident, the cause of accident as also liability to indemnify the insured owner of offending vehicle by the insurance company. Sole question involves in this appeal for consideration is whether or not the Claims Tribunal has awarded adequate compensation to the claimant. In such circumstance, issuance of notice to respondent Nos.1 & 2, who are driver and registered Page No.3 owner of offending vehicle respectively, is dispensed with. With the consent of the parties, appeal is being heard finally at the admission stage itself. 4. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 28.3.2019 passed in Claim Case No.11/2017. 5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 16.12.2016 at about 11:00 p.m. in the night Pardeshi Ram Kenwat (since deceased) was going on his motorcycle to his place of work, when he reached near Soni Dhaba, Kusmunda, the non-applicant No.1, driver of truck bearing registration number CG04-JC-7571 (for short ‘the offending vehicle’), while reversing the offending vehicle has dashed motorcycle of Pardeshi Ram and caused accident. In the said accident, Pardeshi Ram suffered grievous injuries and died instantaneously. Accident was reported in concerned police station based on which Crime No.204/2016 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC was registered against the non-applicant No.1. 6. Claimants/appellants herein, who are widow, children and parents of deceased respectively, filed an application Page No.4 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.1,13,00,000/- under various heads inter alia on the ground that the deceased was sole earning member in the family and they were dependent on the income of the deceased. 7. Non-applicant No.1 & 2 / respondents No.1 & 2 herein did not appear before the Claims Tribunal and therefore, they were proceeded exparte. 8. Non-applicant No.3- Insurance Company submitted its written statement denying the averments made in application. It was pleaded that deceased himself was responsible for the accident and not the non-applicant No.1 because the deceased himself collided with the offending vehicle. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the principle of contributory negligence attracts in present case. On the date of accident, non-applicant No.1 was not having valid and effective driving license to drive offending vehicle and further, the offending vehicle was plied on road without there being valid permit and fitness. Since the offending vehicle was plied in violation of essential conditions of insurance policy, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. 9. The Claims Tribunal after appreciating the pleadings and evidence placed on record (oral and documentary both) by Page No.5 the respective parties has arrived at the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver; there was no element of contributory negligence and consequently, allowed claim application in part; awarded compensation of Rs.56,96,173/- along with interest @ 7% p.a. and fastened liability upon non-applicant No.3/respondent No.3 herein to satisfy the impugned award. 10. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellant submits that on the date of accident, deceased was 52 years old and was in employment of permanent nature, however, while assessing income of the deceased the Claims Tribunal has not added anything towards future prospects. He further submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal under other conventional head is also on lower side and deserves to be enhanced. Hence, he prays that this appeal may be allowed and the amount of compensation be enhanced suitably. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 argues that the amount of compensation as assessed and granted by the learned Claims Tribunal does not call for any interference. He,however, does not dispute that nothing has been added towards future prospect in the income of Page No.6 deceased. He submits that in case the amount of compensation is enhanced, interest for the period of delay in filing this appeal may not be awarded. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of Claims Tribunal. 13. Fact of accident so also liability is not disputed by learned counsel representing the Insurance Company, therefore, this Court is not entering into the said aspect. The only grievance of claimant-appellant is with regard to quantum of compensation awarded. 14. Perusal of the impugned award would show that while assessing income of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal has not added anything towards the loss of future prospects. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017)16 SCC 680 has held that 15% of the assessed income is to be added towards future prospects in cases where victim of a road accident was in the age group of 50 to 60 years and in permanent employment. In case at hand, there is no dispute that at the time of accident, deceased was 52 years old, he was in permanent employment, working as as Electrical Fitter in South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Dhelwadih. Hence, it is ordered that appellants are entitled for addition of 15% of Page No.7 assessed income towards future prospects in the income of deceased. 15. The Claims Tribunal awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.75,000/- under other conventional head of loss of love and affection and Rs.25,000/- for funeral expenses. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect. The Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pra-52 of Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) has opined that reasonable figures on conventional head namely ‘loss of estate‟, ‘loss of consortium‟ and ‘funeral expenses‟ should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. Hence, award of lump sum compensation of Rs.75,000/- awarded under other conventional head i.e. loss of love and affection as well funeral expenses, is erroneous and requires to be reassessed as per the law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 16. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, Hon'ble Apex Court has explained the concept of consortium in para No.21 to 25 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 Page No.8 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 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.” 17. From perusal of the above it is apparent that spousal consortium is awarded to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, co-operation,affection, and aid of the Page No.9 other in every conjugal relation. 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. In the case at hand, perusal of the award would show that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards spousal, parental and filial consortium to the widow, children and parents of the deceased, for which they are otherwise entitled as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma Insurance (supra). 18.For the foregoing, this Court proposes to recalculate amount of compensation payable to the claimants/appellants. 19.Accordingly, income of deceased is taken as Rs.56,527/-/- per month and after adding 15% towards future prospects because on the date of accident, age of deceased was 52 years and in permanent job, the monthly income of deceased would come to Rs.65,006/- (56527+15% of 56527) and annual income would be Rs.7,80,072/- (65006x12). After deducting one-fourth towards personal and living expenses of deceased, as rightly deducted by the Page No.10 Claims Tribunal, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.5,85,054/-. As the deceased was 52 years, multiplier of 11 is applicable and therefore, applying multiplier of 11, the loss of dependency would be Rs.64,35,594/- (585054x11). Besides this, appellant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium; appellants No.2 & 3 are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium being children of deceased and appellant No.4 & 5 are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium being parents of the deceased, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram (supra). In addition to aforesaid amount, appellants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.66,65,594/- (6435594 + 2,00,000 + 30,000) recoverable from the respondents, jointly and severally. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. Any compensation disbursed to appellants pursuant to impugned award shall be adjusted. 20.In view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lakkamma vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Page No.11 reported in (2021) 20 SCC 797, it is directed that the appellant will not be entitled for the interest on the additional amount of compensation for the delayed period, which is of 339 days, as pointed out by the Registry vide office note dated 26.6.2020. 21.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge nisha