1 / 7 2025:CGHC:21574 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M A C No. 1060 of 202 0 1. Smt. Gayatri Meshram Wd/o Late Kadam Singh Aged About 28 Years 2. Tilochan S/o Late Kadam Singh Aged About 8 Years Minor Through The Mother (Natural Guradian ) Smt. Gayatri Meshram 3. Ravideep S/o Late Kadam Singh Aged About 2 Years Minor Through The Mother (Natural Guradian ) Smt. Gayatri Meshram, 4. Andhiyar Singh S/o Mahettar Singh Aged About 80 Years 5. Bhwan Bai W/o Andhiyar Singh Aged About 75 Years All are R/o Village Lalpur , Post Ratanpur Pondi, Police Station Ratanpur , Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants/ Claimants versus 1. Nand Kumar @ Nandu S/o Ramadhar Nirmalkar Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Jhalmala (Banahil) , Police Station Mulmula, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh (Driver of the Vehicle Hiwa Truck No. C.G. 10- D A 7005), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2. Alok Kumar S/o Santosh Pandey Aged About 40 Years In Front Of Ajit Hotel , Old Bus Stand Road , Telipara Bilaspur , Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Vehicle Hiwa Truck No. C.G. 10- D A 7005), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited , Branch Office 2nd Floor Rama Trade Centre , Old Bus Stand , In Front Of Rajiv Plaza , Bilaspur , Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Vehicle Hiwa Truck No. C.G. 10- D A 7005), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 & 2 : None, though served. For Resp. No. 3 : Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 09/05/2025 PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 7 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2020, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay of 189 days in filing of this appeal. 2. The grounds pleaded in the application and the submission made by learned counsel for appellants are opposed by learned counsel for respondent. 3. On due consideration of the submission of learned counsel for respective parties, reasons assigned in the application and considering the fact that this appeal is filed by the claimants who are widow, children and parents, of deceased seeking enhancement of amount of compensation as also considering that the Motor Vehicles Act under which the appeal is filed is a beneficial piece of legislation, I am inclined to allow I.A. No. 01/2020, accordingly, it is allowed and the delay in filing of appeal is hereby condoned. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is upon Resp. No. 3/ Insurance Company, which is not disputed by learned counsel for Respondent No. 3. 5. Considering the above submission and facts of the case, issuance of notice upon Respondents No. 1 & 2 is dispensed with. 6. Appeal is admitted for hearing. 7. With the consent of the parties, case is heard finally. 8. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 12.12.2019 passed by Learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 776/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) 3 / 7 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 15,68,770/- as compensation in a death case. 9. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 01.11.2017 at about 09:00 pm in the night when Kadam Singh was getting the ballast (gitti) unloaded from Hyva truck hydraulic trolley at the Higher Secondary School of his village, after unloading the ballast, non-applicant no. 01 drove the truck negligently without lowering down the hydraulic trolley, due to which the vehicle got in touch with an 11 KV electric wire and due to the electric current in the vehicle, it caught fire and Kadam Singh also came in contact with the electric current, due to which he died on the spot. The accident was reported to the concerned police station, based on which, Crime No. 339/17 was registered against the driver of the truck for alleged offence under Section 304-A IPC. 10. Appellants/ applicants, widow, children and parents of deceased Kadam Singh, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking ₹ 31,70,000/- as compensation pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased Kadam Singh was the Sarpanch of the village and was earning a monthly income of ₹ 10,000/- by doing agriculture work and maintaining himself and his family. The applicants were dependents on the deceased, due to untimely death of the deceased, they have been deprived of the income of the deceased and they have suffered loss of income. 11. Non-applicant No. 1 & 2/ Respondent No. 1 & 2-Driver and the owner of offending vehicle submitted their separate reply, and stated that on the date of the accident, non-applicant no. 1/ driver was in possession of a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle Hyva and non-applicant no. 2 being owner was having all the valid and effective documents of the vehicle. It is further pleaded that the Hyva truck was insured with non- 4 / 7 applicant No. 3/ Insurance company, in such a situation, the responsibility of paying compensation, if any, lies with non-applicant No. 3- Insurance company and prayed that the claim application filed against non-applicant No. 1 & 2 be dismissed. 12. Non-applicant No. 3/ Resp. No. 3-Insurance Company in its reply, apart from accepting the undisputed facts, denied the pleadings made in the application and further stated that that the death of deceased Kadam Singh was not due to motor vehicle accident but due to electric shock, hence the application presented by the applicants under section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act is not maintainable. Gram Panchayat and CG State Electricity Distribution Company are also necessary parties in the case, who have not been made parties, in whose absence also the case of the applicants is not maintainable. On the date of incident, non-applicant no. 1 did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive the truck Hyva and non-applicant no. 2 was operating the vehicle without valid and effective permit and fitness, hence non-applicant no. 3 is not liable for paying any compensation due to violation of the terms of the insurance policy. 13. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Kadam Singh died because of electric current caused due to negligent driving of Hyva truck without lowering down the hydraulic trolley. Breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found to be proved. Non-joinder of necessary parties is also not found to be proved. Tribunal holding the non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company liable to pay the amount of compensation, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 15,68,770/- as total compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application. 5 / 7 14. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre sum of compensation. He submits that this appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. He submits that in the appeal though other grounds have also been taken, however, he is pressing this appeal on the ground that the Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding the amount of compensation towards the loss of consortium. It is contended that the appellants-claimants are entitled for the amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. Hence, the amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 15. Learned counsel for Respondent 3-Insurance Company would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellants and further submits that the amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal in the facts of the case is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. 17. The only ground raised by the counsel for appellants-claimants is of non- awarding of any amount towards loss of consortium to all the appellants- claimants. 18. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nanu Ram (supra) has held that the claimants/ legal representatives of the deceased are also entitled for loss of consortium under the head of loss of spousal consortium to widow, loss of parental consortium to children and loss of filial consortium to parents of deceased. In the case at hand, deceased was husband of appellant no. 1, father of appellants no. 2 & 3 and son of appellants no. 4 & 5, however, 6 / 7 Claims Tribunal has awarded ₹ 40,000/- under the head of loss of consortium to appellant no. 1 only, which is erroneous in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court. 19. Learned Claims Tribunal upon assessing the income of deceased as ₹ 7930/- per month, adding 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects, deducting 1/4 towards loss of dependency and applying multiplier of 14 has calculated the amount of compensation and further awarded ₹ 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and ₹ 15,000/- towards loss of estate, ₹ 40,000/- towards loss of consortium to appellant no. 1, in the terms of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and in case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. Total amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is ₹ 15,68,770/-. Apart from the amount of compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, appellants-claimants shall also be entitled for compensation towards loss of consortium ie., ₹ 40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium to appellants No. 2 & 3; ₹ 40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium to appellants No. 4 & 5, which would come to ₹ 1,60,000/-. 20. Now the appellants-claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 17,28,770/- [₹ 15,68,770 + ₹ 1,60,000]. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount paid to the appellants- claimants pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. 7 / 7 21. Further, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lakkamma vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2021) 20 SCC 797, it is directed that the appellants-claimants will not be entitled for the interest on the additional amount of compensation for the delayed period, which is of 189 days. 22. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn