1 2025:CGHC:33331 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 986 of 2019 1 - Smt. Chameli W/o Ramnik Lal Aged About 50 Years 2 - Ramnik Lal Chouhan S/o Hari Lal Aged About 55 Years 3 - Govind Bhai Chouhan S/o Hari Lal Aged About 29 Years 4 - Goutam Bhai Chouhan S/o Ramnik Lal Aged About 28 Years All are R/o Ward No. 12, Shankar Nagar, Durg, Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants versus 1 - Milan Ram Sahu S/o Ganpat Ram Sahu Aged About 40 Years Through Mahendra Travels, New Bus Stand, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh At Present Village Bagoud, Police Station Kurud District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Turck No. Cg-04,zc 1923), 2 - Praveen Kela S/o Bhanwar Lal Kela Aged About 38 Years R/o New Bus Stand Sanjay Nagar, Kurud, Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari, And Siddhi, Ganesh Rice Industries Charmudiya Road, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Truck No. Cg 04,zc-1923) 3 - H.D. F.C. Irgo General Insurance Comapany Limited Registered And Head Office, First Floor, 165 -166, Bakbe, Redameshan, H.T. Parakh Road, Church Gate, Mumbai, 400020 And Branch Office Third, Floor, Chawla, Complex Devendra Nagar Road, Sai Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Truck No. Cg. 04, Zc 1923), 4 - Ajay Kumar Sharma S/o Late Ramjeevan Sharma Aged About 40 Years R/o Shankar Nagar, Durg Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh.( Owner Of Bus No. C.G.07, E- 1479), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Kalinga Uninversity Through Director, Kalinga University Kotani, Near New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Bus No. Cg -07, E 1479), 6 – The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Chouhan Estate Near Mourya Talkies, G.E. Road, Bhilai Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh.(Insurer Of Bus No. Cg 07, E- 1479) ---Respondents BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.05 11:00:45 +0530 2 For Appellants : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar with Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocates For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi on behalf of Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 16/07/2025 1. Claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District – Durg (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 30.11.2018 passed in Claim Case No.43/2017 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.8,26,000/- as compensation in a death case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that a claim application U/s. 166 of the Act, 1988 was filed by the appellants/claimants being the legal representative of the deceased Umendra Kumar Chauhan. It was pleaded that on 27.11.2016, at about 5:00 to 5:30 PM, Umend Kumar Chauhan, who was working as conductor of the bus bearing No.C.G.-07E-1479 was returning to Durg from Kalinga University, Raipur, driven by Non-applicant No.4, along with students of the university. As soon as the bus reached near Kotra Bhatha Chowk, Raipur, a truck bearing registration number CG-04-ZC/1932, driven by Non-applicant No.1, dashed the bus. Both the vehicles being driven in rash and negligent manner collided with each other. As a result of the collision, Umend Kumar Chauhan was crushed under the bus, 3 sustained grievous injuries, and succumbed to his injuries while being taken to hospital. It was pleaded that deceased Umend Chauhan was a 25 years of able bodied person, working as a conductor in the bus, earning Rs.5,000/- per month. He was also supplying snacks and thereby earning Rs.5,000/- per month. His total income to be Rs.10,000/-. The claimants were dependent upon the deceased and due to his untimely death, they are facing great financial crises. 3. Non-applicants No.1 and 2 remained exparte and no reply was filed on their behalf. Non-applicant No.3 filed its reply denying the averments made in the application. It was pleaded that claim of compensation is highly exaggerated. The truck was not driven rashly or negligently by Non-Applicant No.1; rather, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Non-Applicant No.4, the driver of the bus. 4. Non-applicant No.6 also filed its reply denying the averments made in the application and pleaded that driver of the bus was not negligent in the accident, but the driver of the truck was driving the truck rashly and negligently. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, driver of the bus was holding valid and effective driving license, the vehicle was having valid and effective permit and fitness certificate and it was duly insured under package policy from 10.11.2016 to 09.11.2017. 5. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by the respective parties, allowed the claim application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.8,26,000/-, fastened liability upon non-applicants jointly and severally. 4 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the deceased on lower side of Rs.5,000/- per month overlooking the pleadings of claimants with regard to income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month. Tribunal has not considered the income from work of supply of snacks and also failed to award proper and suitable compensation towards other conventional head. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of evidence came to conclusion that claimant witness Dr. D.M. Sahu (AW-2) has proved the salary of deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month from work of helper of bus run by college. Other income of deceased as pleaded by the claimants has not been proved by clinching evidence. They submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is on proper appreciation of facts and evidence available on record, which does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the record of claim case. 9. So far as the submission of learned counsel for claimants/appellant with regard to income of the deceased is concerned, claimants have pleaded in the claim application that deceased was working as helper/conductor in the bus run by Kalinga University, Naya Raipur. Witness Dr. D.M. Sahu (AW-2) has further stated that as per the documents Ex.P-12, P-13, P-14, the claimants attendance is mentioned as helper in the bus and his salary was Rs.5,000/- per month. Claimants have further examined one Raju Khodiyar as AW.-4, 5 who in his evidence has stated that he was in the business of manufacturing of snacks/namkeen and have submitted certificate of salary to be paid to deceased vide Ex.P-15 and food licence Ex.P-16, however, he admitted in evidence that he has not maintained the account of payment of Rs.5,000/- to deceased as salary. He further admitted that license, which is issued in his favour is only with regard to manufacturing and not for sale. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the evidence of Raju Khodiyar (AW-4), it is appearing that this witness is not in the business of sale of snacks/namkeen and only for manufacturing and could not able to produce clinching evidence to the effect that he was paying Rs.5,000/- as salary to deceased. In the aforementioned facts of the case I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal with regard to income of the deceased of Rs.5,000/-, which is proved by Dr. D.M. Sahu (AW-2) the employee of Kalinga University. 10. Perusal of the award would show that learned Claims Tribunal apart from the compensation towards loss of dependecy has awarded consolidated amount of Rs.70,000/-. The award under other conventional heads is specified and quantified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, under the head loss estate and funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/- each and Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium in a death case. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled for Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and for funeral expenses. It is ordered accordingly. 6 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 has explained the types of consortium and held that there are three types of loss of consortium i.e. loss of spousal consortium for widow/widower, loss of parental consortium to the children and loss of filial consortium to parents. The claimants/appellants are parents and brother of the deceased, therefore, appellants No.1 & 2 being the parents of deceased are entitled for filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly. 12. For the forgoing discussions the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellants required recomputation, which is as under :- SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. Loss of dependency : 7,56,000.00 2. For loss of filial consortium to the appellants No.1 & 2 Rs.40,000/- each (40,000 x 2 = 80,000/-. : 80,000.00 3. For funeral expenses : 15,000.00 4. For loss of estate : 15,000.00 Total Compensation : 8,66,000.00 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.8,66,000.00. Any amount paid to the appellants as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 7 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram