1 2025:CGHC:640 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1247 of 2017 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Divisional Office, Rama Trade Centre, Near Bus Stand, Bilaspur, Local Office Manendragarh Road, Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. Insurer, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Pushpa Khandey Wd/o Aved Kumar Khandey, Aged About 19 Years Caste Chamar, R/o Village Tripureshwar, Police Station And Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Dinkar Khandey S/o Aved Kumar Khandey, Aged About 02 Months Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Pushpa Wd/o Aved Kumar Khandey, Caste Chamar, R/o Village Tripureshwar, Police Station And Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Shivprasad Khandey S/o Brijlal Ram, Aged About 48 Years Caste Chamar, R/o Village Tripureshwar, Police Station And Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sahodri W/o Shivprasad Khandey, Aged About 44 Years Caste Chamar, R/o Village Tripureshwar, Police Station And Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Dablu Kumar Khandey S/o Shivprasad Khandey Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Claimant No. 3 Shiv Prasad Khandey S/o Brijlal Ram, Caste Chamar, R/o Village Tripureshwar, Police Station And Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. , District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Soni Kumar D/o Shivprasad Khandey, Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Claimant No. 3 Shiv Prasad Khandey S/o Brijlal Ram, Caste Chamar, R/o Village Tripureshwar, Police Station And Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Smt. Kiran Agrawal, W/o Shri Ratanlal Agrawal, Aged About 45 Years R/o 101, Agrasen Ward Ambikapur, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh/Owner BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.01.08 10:16:33 +0530 2 8 - Satyadev Jaiswal S/o Late Surendra Prasad Jaiswal, Aged About 35 Years R/o Mangal Pandey Ward No. 10, Narsingh Home Vidyalaya Namnakala, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh/Driver ... Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate For Respondent(s) 7 & 8 : Mr. Nishikant Sinha, Advocates For Respondents 1 to 6 : None present, though notice served. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 06/01/2025 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/ Orient Insurance Company Ltd. under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) questioning the legality and propriety of award dated 04.5.2017 passed by Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur Distt. Surajpur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.114/15, by which the learned Claims Tribunal while allowing the claim in part has fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company. 2. Facts of the case, in brief are that, on 11.4.2015 at about 3.30 pm, Aved Kumar Khandey was going by his Hero Honda Passion motor cycle bearing Registration No.CG 15-CN-1683 from Chhindiya Jagatpur to his home and on the way at village Chhindiya middle Basti, his motor cycle was dashed by a trailor bearing registration No.CG 10 TR-121/15, driven by respondent No.8/Satyadev Jaiswal, as a result of which, Aved Kumar Khandey suffered grievous injuries and died during treatment. By filing application under Section 166 of the Act 1988, the claimants/respondents 1 to 6 sought compensation from non-applicants. Vide impugned award dated 04.5.2017, the learned Claim Tribunal partly allowed the application filed by the claimants and directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation to 3 the tune of Rs.46,86,866/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case till date of payment of amount of compensation to the claimants. By filing this appeal, the Insurance Company has challenged the award. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that he is not pressing this appeal on all grounds, rather his objection is only limited with regard to deduction of 1/5 of the income of the deceased for his personal expenses as total number of claimants are six. He would further submits that as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Prany Sethi & Ors. Reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, looking to the number of dependency, i.e. six, instead of deducting 1/5 from the income of deceased, the Claims Tribunal ought to have deducted ¼ towards personal expenses, hence, it is prayed that the amount of dependency may be reduced accordingly. He would next submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has granted Rs.3,35,000/- in the conventional head, whereas, considering the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Ors. reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, it ought to have granted to the extent of Rs.2,70,000/-, as such, the amount granted under the conventional head may be reduced to the above extent. 4. Despite service of notice, none present on behalf of the claimants/ respondents 1 to 6. 5. Learned counsel for respondents 7 & 8, i.e. owner and driver of offending vehicle would submit that he has no objection in respect of instant appeal, as since the vehicle was insured and there was no breach of policy condition, the liability has rightly been fastened upon the appellant/Insurance Company. 4 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. In the case of Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra), the Apex Court has held that if the number of dependency upon the deceased is between 4 to 6, then deduction for his personal expenses should be ¼ and if number of dependency is more than six, then, deduction on personal expenses should be 1/5. In the instant case, the claimants are six in number, who are wife, son, father, mother, brother & sister of the deceased, therefore, the Claims Tribunal ought to have deducted ¼ for personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/5, as such, total amount of dependency is required to be revisited accordingly. 8. As also in the case of Magma (supra), the Apex Court has held that amount of compensation granted in funeral expenses and loss of estate ought to have been Rs.15,000/- on each head and on account of loss of various consortium, i.e. spousal consortium, parental consortium and filiyal consortium etc., an amount to the tune of Rs.40,000/- ought to have been granted to each person. But in the instant case, learned Claims Tribunal has granted Rs.3 lakh for loss of consortium. In this regard it is apt to be noted that in para 40 of the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has granted total Rs.2 lakh under the head of consortium, but in para 41, while totaling the amount of compensation, Rs.1 lakh has again been added, therefore, it needs to be corrected. 9. Having considered the aforesaid facts, amount of compensation granted by the Claims Tribunal is hereby modified as under:- 5 Sl. No. (1) Head (2) Awarded by the Tribunal (3) Awarded by this Court (4) 1. Income of the deceased ₹2,00,544/- (per Annum) ₹2,00,544/- (per Annum) 2. Future prospect 50% (as assessed by the Tribunal) ₹2,00,544 + 1,00,272 = ₹3,00,816/- ₹2,00,544 + 1,00,272 = ₹3,00,816/- 3. Deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased(as assessed by the Tribunal) 1/5 deduction ₹3,00,816 – 60,163.2 = ₹2,40,652.8 ¼ deduction ₹3,00,816 – Rs.75,204/- = ₹2,25,612/- 4. Annual loss of dependency ₹2,40,653/- ₹2,25,612/- 5. Multiplier applied for assessing total loss of dependency (as assessed by the Tribunal) Multiplier - 18 ₹2,40,653/- x 18 = ₹43,31,750/- Multiplier – 18 2,25,612 x 18 = ₹ 40,61,016/- ₹ 6. Towards conventional heads 3,35,000/- ₹ [ 3,00,000/- for loss of ₹ consortium; ₹25,000/- for funeral expenses & ₹10,000/- for loss of estate] 2,70,000/- ₹ [ 2,40,000/- ( 40,000/- for ₹ ₹ each person) for loss of consortium; ₹15,000/- for funeral expenses & 15,000/- ₹ for loss of estate] 7. Motor cycle repair charges 20,116/- ₹ 20,116/- ₹ 8. Total Compensation 46,86,866/- ₹ 43,51,132/- ₹ 6 10. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to receive compensation to the tune of Rs.43,51,132/- instead of Rs.46,86, 866/-. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed on behalf of the Insurance Company is allowed in part and impugned award is modified to the extent that the amount of compensation of Rs.46,86,866/- awarded to the claimants by the Claim Tribunal is reduced to Rs.43,51,132/- and this amount shall carry interest 9% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the award shall remain intact. 12. The award stands modified to the above extent. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini