1 2025:CGHC:28725 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1700 of 2017 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Ambikapur Post Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ..............Insurance Company Of Bolero Vehicle, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Usha Kiran Shrivastava W/o Late Premshankar Shrivastav, Aged About 56 Years R/o Bauripara Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Anuradha Shrivastav D/o Late Premshankar Shrivastav, Aged About 32 Years R/o Bauripara Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Anubha Shrivastav D/o Late Premshankar, Aged About 27 Years R/o Bauripara Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Anupma Shrivastav D/o Late Premshankar Shrivastav, Aged About 25 Years R/o Bauripara Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh .............Claimants, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Lalit Kumar Mohanti S/o A.K.Mohanti, Aged About 58 Years R/o Tiwari Building Kedarpur Post Ambikapur, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ..............Driver/ Owner Of Bolero Vehicle, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 6 - Gaurav Singh S/o Anil Kumar Singh, R/o Bhatthi Road Kedarpur, Ambikapur, District Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.07.25 18:12:06 +0530 2 Surguja, Chhattisgarh ..............Driver Of Borwel Truck Vehicle, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Shri Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 4 : Shri Tessy Abraham, Advocate on behalf of Shri Amrito Das, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 27/06/2025 1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the insurance company being aggrieved by the award dated 10.8.2017 passed in Claim Case No.172 of 2016 by 2nd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Surguja. 2. Case, in short, is that on 1.4.2016 at about 7:30 pm deceased Premshankar was travelling in Bolero Vehicle No.CG 15 B 8141 which was being driven by respondent No.5 Lalit Kumar and due to rash driving of this vehicle it dashed with stationary truck (Borwel Truck) No.CG 15 AC 4095 and due to the dash with the truck, Premshankar who was sitting in the Bolero vehicle sustained injury and as a result of the injury he died. 3. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.29,37,915 in favour of the claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e., 18.7.2016 till final payment. Liability to satisfy the award was fastened upon driver/respondent No.5 and insurance company/appellant. 3 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the Tribunal has wrongly passed the award only against the Bolero driver/respondent No.5, who is owner of the said vehicle also. The Borwel Truck was in stationary condition and because the Bolero vehicle dashed with the Borwel Truck, hence both the vehicles were liable for the accident. The owner and the insurer of the offending Borwel Truck were necessary party, hence, in absence of necessary party, the claim petition was to be awarded against both the vehicles. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company further submits that the Tribunal has wrongly awarded excess compensation because as per income document, age of the deceased was 1.7.1955, hence, at the time of accident, age of the deceased was near about 60 years and 9 months. All three daughters who are claimants are major, hence major daughters were not dependent on the deceased father. Hence, dependent will be only one claimant, i.e., widow of the deceased and for widow deduction may be applied only 1/3, but, the Tribunal has wrongly applied deduction of 1/4, which needs to be considered. 6. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4/claimants submits that the deceased was working in the Revenue Department and his income was Rs.4,28,580 per annum. Correct age of the deceased on the date of accident was 60 years and 9 months. Hence, the deduction towards his personal expenses 4 should be 1/3rd of his income and the multiplier of 7 should be applied. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants further submits that proper compensation has not been awarded to the claimants, as such proper compensation is required to be given to the claimants. It was argued that in conventional heads like consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate, as per National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, there would be an increase of 10% every three years, as such the said amount is required to be given to the respondents/claimants. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company objected the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents/claimants stating that they have not filed any cross appeal and as such compensation cannot be enhanced without there being any cross appeal. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants has placed reliance upon an order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.476 of 2020 dated 21.1.2020 in the matter of Surekha W/o Rajendra Nakhate and others v. Santosh S/o Namdeo Jadhav and others in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “Denial of enhanced compensation on ground that claimants failed to file cross appeal, Court should not 5 take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to affected person or claimants. 3. By now, it is well-settled that in the matter of insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants.” 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available. 11. Considering the facts of the case, the appropriate deduction from personal income would be 1/3 share and the appropriate multiplier would be 7 in this case. So far as enhancement of compensation on conventional heads is concerned, on the basis of law laid down in the aforesaid case by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court considers it fit to enhance the compensation even though no cross appeal has been filed by the claimants. The appropriate compensation would be as follows: Sl.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1 Monthly Salary 36,945 2 Yearly Income Rs.36,945x12= 4,43,340 3 Deduction (1/3rd) Rs.4,43,340/3= 1,47,780 4 Net Income Rs.4,43,340 – 1,47,780 = 2,95,560 5 Multiplier 7 Rs.2,95,560x7= 20,68,920 6 6 Funeral Expenses There will be an increase of 10% every three years 19,500 7 Consortium Rs.52,000 per person as there will be an increase of 10% every three years. Rs.52,000 x 4 persons = 2,08,000 8 Loss of Estate There will be an increase of 10% every three years 19,500 9 Final Calculation = Rs.20,68,920 +19,500 +2,08,000 + 19,500 = 23,15,920; (Rs.23,15,920 x 6% interest from the year 2016) 23,15,920 12. Now, since a sum of Rs.29,37,915 has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal, as such while reducing the same, total amount of Rs.23,15,920 is payable. 13. It is stated on behalf of the respondents/claimants that an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- has already been paid by the insurance company, as such rest of the amount of Rs.3,15,920/- is to be paid to the claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum. 7 14. The other conditions of the award passed by the Claims Tribunal would be as it is. 15. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company is partly allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh