-1- 2025:CGHC:22924 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1262 of 2019 1 - Smt. Udeshiya W/o Late Arjun Pando Aged About 35 Years 2 - Ku. Chanda D/o Late Arjun Pando Aged About 16 Years 3 - Ku. Mamta D/o Late Arjun Pando Aged About 14 Years 4 - Ku. Reeta D/o Late Arjun Pando Aged About 12 Years 5 - Abhimanyu S/o Arjun Pando Aged About 10 Years No. 2 to 5 are Minor, Represented Through Legal Gaurdian Mother Smt. Udeshiya W/o Late Arjun Pando, 6 - Smt. Sumariya W/o Late Shyamlal Pando Aged About 60 Years All are R/o Village Podi, Police Station And Tahsil Sonhat, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Gulab Chandra Choudhari S/o Shobhnath Choudhari Aged About 40 Years Vehicle Owner And Driver, R/o Village Podi,police Station And Tahsil Sonhat, District Koriya Chhattisgarh 2 - Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Pandey Complex, Mauharpara Road, Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. 3 - Darshan Singh Sohi S/o Sadhu Singh Sohi Aged About 57 Years Vehicle Owner R/o Mig- M248 Tatibandh, Raipur, Police Station Amanaka, District Raipur 4 - Kudus Khan S/o Ikrar Khan Aged About 51 Years Occupation Driver Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.06.16 10:20:28 +0530 -2- R/o Chapki, Tahsil Dudhi, Police Station Babhni, District Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh, At Present Address Mig-248 Tatibandh Raipur, Police Station Amanaka, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Branch Manager The Oriental Insurer Company Limited, Branch Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. V.K. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. H.P. Agrawal, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 10/06/2025 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 Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Baikunthpur, District - Koriya (CG) vide award dated 7th February 2019 passed in Claim Case No.4 of 2017. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that applicants/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, pleading therein that on 18/03/2015 Arjun Pando along with his other companions were returning to their home at village Podi from Korbi in the vehicle Bolero No. CG 16G-0135 of non-applicant No.1. Non- applicant No.1 drove the Bolero vehicle rashly and negligently, dashed against the rear side of the truck No. CG 04JD-9513 parked on the -3- roadside in village Banjaridand main road, due to which all the persons sitting in the Bolero vehicle suffered serious injuries. Arjun Pando and two other persons died on the spot. The deceased Arjun Pando was working as a teacher panchayat and was receiving a salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month. The applicants were dependents upon the income of Arjun Pando and have suffered a great loss due to his death. The claimants/appellants prayed for total compensation of Rs. 81,18,000/- under various heads from non-applicants. 4. Non-applicants by filing their respective written statements have denied the pleadings made in the claim application. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which Arjun Pando sustained grievous injuries and died. Recording a finding that breach of the conditions of insurance policy was not found proved, learned Claims Tribunal held non-applicants liable to pay amount of compensation to claimants and awarded total compensation of Rs.27,64,100/ -. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal erred in adding only 30% of the assessed income towards loss of future prospects instead of 50% because on the date of accident, deceased was only 40 years of age and working as Shikshakarmi which is a permanent government employment. He also contended that learned Tribunal has not awarded amount towards loss of -4- consortium to appellants No. 2 to 6 for which they are entitled, in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellants. He submits that submission of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that learned Tribunal ought to have added 50% of assessed income towards loss of future prospects, is not correct. Learned Tribunal has added 30% of the assessed income towards loss of future prospects which is in consonance with the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680. He further submits that amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 8. So far as the first ground raised by learned counsel for the appellants with respect to addition of 30% of assessed income instead of 50% towards loss of future prospects is concerned, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has considered the award of future prospects and has also issued guidelines for addition of percentage of assessed income considering age of deceased and has held as under :- “59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, -5- should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4. In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.” 9. In case at hand, undisputedly, deceased was in permanent employment and was 40 years of age at the time of accident and therefore there shall be addition of 30% of the assessed income of the deceased, which, in the opinion of this Court, learned Tribunal has rightly assessed. 10. For the foregoing discussions, submission of learned counsel for the appellants that learned Tribunal erred in adding 30% of the assessed income towards loss of future prospects instead of 50% is not sustainable and is accordingly repelled. 11. Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- only to claimant No.1 (wife of the deceased) towards loss of spousal consortium and have not awarded any amount of consortium to appellants No. 2 to 6. 12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nanu Ram (supra) has specified types of consortium and it was held that there are three types of -6- consortium i.e. ‘loss of spousal consortium to wife/husband, ‘loss of parental consortium’ to children and loss of ‘filial consortium’ to parents of the deceased. Appellants/claimants No. 2 to 5 are children of deceased and, therefore, they are also entitled for loss of parental consortium of Rs.40,000/- each and appellant No.6 is mother of deceased and, therefore, she is entitled for grant of filial consortium of Rs.40,000/-. 13. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I find it appropriate to re- compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. A) Loss of Income/dependency 15351 x 12 = 1,84,212 (B) Addition towards future prospects @ 30% (1,84,212 x 30% =55264) 1,84,212+ 55264 = 2,39,476 (C) Deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses (2,39,476 x 1/4 =59869) 2,39,476- 59869 = 179607 (D) Multiplier of 15 179607 x 15 = 26,94,105 : Rs. 26,94,105 2. Spousal Consortium to claimant/appellant No.1 (wife) (Correctly awarded by the Tribunal) : (+) Rs. 40,000 3. Funeral Expenses (Correctly awarded by the Tribunal) : (+) Rs. 15,000 4. Loss of Estate (Correctly awarded by the Tribunal) : (+) Rs. 15,000 5. Loss of parental consortium to (+) Rs. 1,60,000 -7- claimants/appellants No. 2 to 5 @ 40,000/- each 6. Loss of Filial Consortium of Rs.40,000/- to appellant/claimant No.6 (mother) (+) Rs. 40,000 Total compensation Rs. 29,64,105 14. Now the appellants/claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs.29,64,105/- instead of Rs.27,64,100/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 15. Aforementioned total amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9 % 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. 16. 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