1 2025:CGHC:39437 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1340 of 2019 ICICI Lombard General Insuranc Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Vanijya Bhawan, Ground Floor, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant/Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Uma Wd/o Mukund Deep Aged About 45 Years R/o Railway Colony, Arang, P.S. Arang, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vijay S/o Mukund Deep Aged About 25 Years R/o Railway Colony, Arang, P.S. Arang, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Manoj S/o Mukund Deep Aged About 22 Years R/o Railway Colony, Arang, P.S. Arang, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Akash S/o Mukund Deep Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Represented Mother Smt. Umadeep, R/o Railway Colony, Arang, P.S. Arang, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Aditya S/o Mukund Deep Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Represented Mother Smt. Umadeep, R/o Railway Colony, Arang, P.S. Arang, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Jitender Yadav S/o Sona Yadav Through Anil Kumar S/o Rajmani Pandey, Manager, Pal Goods Transport Company, Amanaka, Raipur ( Near Ravishankar University) 7 - Pal Goods Transport Company, Through In-Charge Officer, Pal Goods Transport Compandy 13/4, Khairad Saili Lane, Burrabazar, Jorasako, Kol-7, Kolkata ( West Bengal) ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG 2 8 - Pal Goods Transport Company Anil Kumar S/o Rajmani Pandey, Pal Goods Transport Company, Amanaka Raipur ( Near Ravishankar University ) Amanaka Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents/Non-applicants For Appellant :Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate appears along with Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondents no. 1 to 5 :Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate For Respondent no. 6 to 8 :Not Served Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 07.08.2025 1. Appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”), challenging the impugned award dated 27.10.2018 passed by Learned 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 280/2016, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 (for short Act of 1988) seeking compensation of Rs.1,13,70,000/-, in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 34,78,886/- as compensation in motor accidental death case. 2. Respondent no. 1 to 5/Claimants have also filed cross-appeal/objection vide award dated 27.10.2018, seeking enhancement in amount of compensation awarded. 3. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 31.01.2016 at about 7:45 am when Mukund Deep was travelling on his motorcycle bearing registration no. CG 04 HQ 9263, reached near village- Baihar , Police Station Arang, District- Raipur, one truck bearing registration no. WB 23 C 3463 driven rashly and negligently by non-applicant no. 6, dashed the motorcycle of Mukund Deep from its back side and caused accident. In the accident, Mukund Deep suffered grievous injuries. He was taken to hospital, 3 however, during course of treatment he succumbed to motor accidental injuries. Accident was reported to police station Arang, District-Raipur based on which Crime No. 49/16 was registered against non-applicant No. 6/driver. 4. Claimants who are widow and children of deceased- Mukund Deep, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 1,13,70,000/- against the death of Mukund Deep pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was a healthy person aged about 48 years, he was posted as Senior T.P. in Central Government Railway Department and earning Rs. 45,000/- per month. 5. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle did not appeared before the learned Claims Tribunal and were proceeded ex-parte. 6. Insurance Company filed its reply to the claim application, denying the facts pleaded therein. It was pleaded that on the date of accident driver of the offending truck was not possessed with valid and effective driving license, as such, there was breach of policy conditions, thus, if there is any liability, Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the injured. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased -Mukund Deep died because of grievous injuries suffered by him in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending truck by non-applicant no. 1; allowed the claim application in part, assessed monthly income of deceased as Rs. 25,761/-, being Group-D Railway employee, calculated the amount of compensation accordingly and awarded ₹ 34,78,886/- as total compensation with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization and fastened liability to satisfy the award upon non-applicants therein, jointly and severally. 8. Learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company would submit that learned Claims Tribunal fell into error in not considering the ground raised by the appellant-Insurance Company, that the insurance policy issued in favor of the 4 offending truck owned by non-applicant no. 7 was not in force as it was obtained by false representation. She submits that at the time of obtaining policy, owner of the vehicle had submitted that he has not taken any claim against the previous policy and therefore, benefit of ‘no claim bonus’ was extended to him i.e. 20% discount in premium. She submits that as the policy was obtained by mentioning wrong facts, the non-applicant no. 7 will not be entitled for benefit of the policy issued in his favor. She also contended that, in fact, the policy is a fake policy. 9. Learned counsel for Respondent no. 1 to 5 -claimants opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company and would submit that ground raised by the appellant before the learned Claims Tribunal has been well considered and decided. He contended that to prove the pleadings made in reply to the claim application, Insurance Company examined-Sunil Gadnayak, Legal Manager of the Insurance company as NAW-3-1. He in his evidence has clearly stated that after accepting the premium as settled, insurance policy was issued valid for the period from 29.01.2016 to 28.01.2017, whereas the accident occurred on 31.01.2016 and, therefore, on the date of accident the offending vehicle was insured and policy was effective. He contended that prior to the accident, insurance company has not issued notice to the owner, nor at any point of time prior to accident had cancelled the insurance policy issued in favor of the owner of the offending truck. 10. In view of the aforementioned evidence of NAW-3-1, the learned Claims Tribunal has decided the issue no. 2 in negative. He next contended that the claimants have filed cross-appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal primariy on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal has awarded loss of consortium only to claimant no. 1 i.e. the widow of deceased, and not awarded compensation under the head of loss of consortium to claimant no. 2 to 5/respondent no. 2 to 5, who are 5 children of deceased. Referring to the decision 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 he submits that the children of the deceased are entitled for compensation under the head of loss of parental consortium. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 12. So far as the ground raised by learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that the policy which was placed before the learned Claims Tribunal to be fake is concerned, perusal of the evidence of NAW-3-1, Sunil Gadnayak, Legal Manager of the Insurance Company would show that the policy was issued from the office of the Oriental Insurance Company with the validity period from 29.01.2016 to 28.01.2017. This witness only stated that by mentioning wrong facts, benefit of no claim bonus was obtained at the time of payment of premium, therefore, the policy was ineffective. This witness also admitted that the policy issued in favor of truck owned by non- applicant no. 7 at no point of time was cancelled prior to the date of accident. From the evidence of the witness examined by Insurance Company, it is appearing that the plea taken by the insurance company of fake policy is with regard to earlier policy produced by the owner of the offending vehicle before the company at the time of renewal of policy having validity dated from 29.01.2016 to 28.01.2017. The said policy was not produced and proved by insurance company before the learned Claims Tribunal. Even otherwise, the issuance of policy under which the offending vehicle was insured and the company has been held liable is not stated to be fake but has been accepted and admitted by the witness that it was issued from the office of the company. 13. The provision of Section 64 VB of the Insurance Company Act provides that, if, for any reason the policy issued in favor of the vehicle owned by any 6 person is to be cancelled, prior notice is required to be issued prior to the cancellation of the policy. In the case in hand, neither notice was issued nor insurance policy issued for the offending truck was cancelled. 14. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the nature of ground raised in reply to the claim application, learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in deciding the ground as pleaded by appellant-Insurance Company in its reply, in negative. The same is maintained. 15. For the forgoing discussion the appeal filed by the insurance company being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 16. So far as the submission made by respondents-claimants on the cross- appeal seeking enhancement of compensation is concerned, law in this regard is well settled in the case of Nanu Ram(supra) that the spouse, children and parents of the deceased each are entitled for award of compensation of Rs. 40,000/- each for loss of consortium under the head of spousal, parental and filial consortium respectively. 17. Undisputedly, claimants no. 2 to 5 are children of the deceased and therefore, as per above decision, they will be entitled for compensation of Rs. 40,000/- each under the head of loss of parental consortium. 18. In accordance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 the compensation awarded under other conventional heads is required to be increased by 10%. It is ordered accordingly. 19. In the aforementioned facts of the case, claimants will be entitled for a sum of Rs. 34,08,886/- towards loss of dependency, Rs. 16,500/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 16,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 2,20,000/- (Rs. 44,000/- x 5) towards loss of consortium. 7 20. Now the claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of Rs. 36,61,886/- instead of Rs. 34,78,886/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount of consortium shall carry simple interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. • Any amount paid to the claimants pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. Rest of the conditions as imposed by the Claims Tribunal in the impugned award shall remain intact. 21. In the result, appeal preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company is dismissed, cross-appeal/objection filed by claimants/respondent no. 1 to 5 is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge alfiza