-1- 2025:CGHC:16137 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 881 of 2020 1 - Devendra Singh Routela S/o Late Dharam Singh Routela Aged About 45 Years 2 - Smt. Chandra Routela W/o Devendra Singh Routela Aged About 44 Years 3 - Chanchal Singh Routela D/o Devendra Singh Routela Aged About 22 Years 4 - Bhanu Singh Routela Aged About 20 Years All the applicants are R/o Ward No. 18, Kailashnagar, Beergaon, P. S. Urla, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Vivek Pandey S/o Kishore Pandey R/o Gali No. 5, Telibandha, Behind Revadi Factory, P. S. Telibandha, District Raipur Chhattisgarh .....… (Driver of Innova Car No. C.G. 04 KZ-0777) 2 - Pappu Chandrakar S/o D. P. Chandrakar R/o Behind Ghasidas Temple, Telibandha, District Raipur Chhattisgarh .....… (Owner Of Innova Car No. C.G.04 KZ-0777) 3 - Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through In Charge Officer/ Competent Officer, Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Add.- 205 M. M. Silver Plaza, Rin Branch-I, Kachahari Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ........… (Insurer Of Innova Car No. C.G.-04 KZ-0777) ... Respondent(s) ___________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 & 2 : None appears though served For Resp. No.3 : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate __________________________________________________________ Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.04.15 15:00:24 +0530 -2- S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 07/04/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally. 2. This is the claimants’ appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Fourth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) vide award dated 19.08.2019 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.539 of 2015. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG), pleading therein that on 19.01.2015 at around 11.30 pm, near Marine Drive under Police Station Telibandha, non- applicant No.1 driving his Innova Car No.CG-04/KZ-0777 rashly and negligently hit the motorcycle driven by Nandan Singh Routela, as a result of which, Nandan Singh Routela suffered grievous injuries in different parts of his body and died. 4. Claimants filed application stating that deceased Nandan Singh Routela was a healthy person aged 27 years and was the sole breadwinner in the family. Nandan Singh Routela's untimely death caused a deep mental shock to his entire family. At the time of the accident, deceased Nandan Singh Routela was working as an office assistant in Godavari Power Ispat Limited, Siltara and -3- earning Rs.12,000/- per month, which he used to spend on himself and his family. The applicants/claimants have prayed for compensation of Rs.45,20,000/- from the non-applicants under various heads as compensation against the death of Nandan Singh Routela in the said accident. 5. Non-applicant No.1 filed his written statement refuting all the pleadings made in the claim application and he mainly stated that on the date of the accident, front tyre of his vehicle burst due to which he lost control on the vehicle and despite all efforts, vehicle overturned. There is no negligence on the part of non-applicant No.1 in the said accident and non-applicant No. 3/insurer of the vehicle is responsible for paying the compensation amount. 6. Non-applicant No. 2 did not file reply and remained ex-parte in the proceedings. 7. In its written statement, non-applicant No. 3, refuted all the pleadings of the claim application and it was pleaded that the said motorcycle driver did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive a motorcycle. It is clear that the alleged accident occurred due to his lack of knowledge of driving a motorcycle. The case falls under the category of contributory negligence. The offending vehicle was driven, without the driver possessing a valid and effective driving license, therefore, non-applicant No.3 is not responsible to pay compensation on behalf of the vehicle owner as per the provisions of Section 149 of the Act of 1988. After registering the offending vehicle/Car for the purpose of taxi use, it -4- was used by the vehicle owner for commercial use, however, for this he did not obtain permit and fitness as per law, as such, there was violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy. The insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. 8. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, non-applicant No.1- Vivek Pandey while driving the offending vehicle i.e. Innova Car rashly and negligently, caused accident in which Nandan Singh Routela sustained serious injuries resulting in his death. Recording a finding that violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy is proved, learned Claims Tribunal held non-applicants No.1 & 2 i.e. Driver and Owner of the offending vehicle liable to pay the amount of compensation to the applicants/claimants jointly and severally, award to be satisfied by non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company first and thereafter to recover it from respondents No. 1 & 2. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased on lower side. Loss of future prospect is added only to extent of 40% instead of 50% overlooking the fact that on the date of incident i.e. 19.01.2015 deceased was a salary paid employee and in service. He next contended that learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount of compensation to the claimants under the head- loss of consortium overlooking the fact that claimants are father, mother and two brothers. -5- 10. Respondents No. 1 & 2 is reported to be served, however, there is no representation on their behalf. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company supports the impugned award of compensation and submits that amount awarded by Claims Tribunal is just and proper and needs no interference by this Court 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of the Claims Tribunal. 13. In this case, it is undisputed that the accident-causing vehicle i.e. Innova Car was insured with respondent No.3/Insurance Company. Non-applicant No.1 is the driver and non-applicant No.2 is the registered owner of the Innova Car. 14. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellants with respect to assessment of the monthly income of the deceased on the date of accident is concerned, perusal of the records would show that claimants have submitted salary slip of deceased for the period of 01.01.2015 - 31.01.2015 and 01.12.2014 - 31.12.2014 . In the salary slip issued for the month of January 2015, the take home salary is mentioned as Rs.12,746/- whereas in the month of December 2014 it is mentioned as Rs.8,483/-. Salary slip of January 2015 would show that deceased was paid sum of Rs.1,818/- towards bonus and Rs.1,135/- towards leave encashment . Bonus is not a regular pay and it is paid occasionally only when the the Company gains excess profit in the business. Leave encashment amount already remains in the account of -6- employee and in case he retires or dies untimely, the amount as per entitlement under leave encashment is to be paid to the employee or legal heirs. Hence, both the amounts i.e amount towards bonus and leave encashment, cannot be taken for assessing the income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating amount of compensation. 15. Learned Claims Tribunal taking note of the salary slip for the month December 2014 has taken the average income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- per month which cannot be said to be erroneous and hence I do not find any good ground to interfere with such finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal. 16. So far as next submission of learned counsel for the claimants/appellants with respect to adding of amount in the salary of deceased towards loss of future prospects is concerned, this issue is well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC wherein it was held that where the deceased had a permanent job and was below age of 40 years, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income should be made and 40% in case of death of self-employed person. 17. Undisputedly, the deceased was salary paid employee and working with Godawari Power and Ispat Ltd. of HIRA Group, Raipur. Bhogenda Jha (A.W. 3), Dy. General Manager (Personnel), Godawari Power and Ispat Ltd. in his evidence has proved the employment of the deceased with the Godawari Ispat Pvt. Ltd and -7- has also proved the salary slip. 18. In the aforementioned facts of the case and considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as above, I am of the view that learned Claims Tribunal erred in adding only 40% of the assessed income of deceased towards future prospects instead of 50%. The claimants are entitled for addition of 50% of the assessed income as future prospects in the assessed income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. It is ordered accordingly. 19. Learned Claims Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case rightly applied the deduction, multiplier, hence, it does not call for any interference. With respect to award of consortium, learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount towards loss of consortium to the parents of the deceased as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130. 20. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the discussions as also law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned decisions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. Total loss of income/dependency (1,08,000 x 50% =54,000/- 1,08,000 + 54,000 =1,62,000/- 1,62,000 x 1/2 =81,000/- 1,62,000 -81,000 =81,000/- : Rs. 14,58,000 -8- 81,000 x 18 = 14,58,000) 2. Loss of Filial Consortium of Rs.40,000/- to Claimants/Appellants No. 1 & 2 being parents of the deceased : (+)Rs. 80,000 3. Funeral expenses : (+) Rs. 15,000 4. Loss of Estate : (+) Rs. 15,000 Total compensation : Rs. 15,68,000 21. Now the appellants/claimants are awarded the total compensation of Rs.15,68,000/- instead of Rs.13,90,800/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 22. Aforementioned total amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5 % 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 has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Other conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 23. 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