1 2025:CGHC:33788 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1499 of 2019 1 - Chamraram S/o Late Mansharam Sahu Aged About 58 Years 2 - Smt. Sunita Sahu W/o Late Chhabi @ Chhameshar Sahu Aged About 25 Years 3 - Minor Dheeraj S/o Chhabi @ Chhameshwar Sahu Aged About 7 Years Occupation Student, 4 - Minor Anish S/o Chhabi @ Chhameshwar Sahu Aged About 4 Years Occupation Student, All are R/o Village Charkhapara, Tahsil Charkhapara, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants versus 1 - James Ikka S/o Piyush Ikka Aged About 23 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Village Utrathi, Kovera Tarai, Thana Tandava, District Jatra Jharkhand, Jharkhand 2 - Ranchi Pallottin Society Through Father John Sundu, Vehicle Owner, I/c Pallottin Nagar, Kurru Lohardaga Jharkhand 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Hotel Novelty, Power Ganj Chowk, Lohardaga District Lohardaga Jharkhand ….Respondents BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.05 11:03:27 +0530 2 For Appellants : Mr. Ramayan Yadav, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : None present though served. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 17/07/2025 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 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gharghoda, District – Raigarh (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 19.02.2019 passed in Claim Case No.64/2018 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.6,25,300/- as compensation in a death case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming total compensation of Rs.76,10,000/- under different heads against the death of Chhabi @ Chhameshwar Sahu, who died in a road accident, pleading therein that on 19.10.2014, Chhabi alias Chhameshwar Sahu, was traveling from Village Charkhapara to Pathalgaon on his motorcycle bearing registration number CG 13-U 4608 to procure goods for his grocery shop. When he reached near Nandanjharia Bridge, a Marshall vehicle bearing registration number BR 14P 2848, coming from the direction of Pathalgaon being driven by non-applicant No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, collided with his motorcycle. As a result of collision, Chhabi alias Chhameshwar Sahu suffered grievous 3 injuries and died on the spot. It was pleaded that on the date of accident deceased Chhabi @ Chhameshwar Sahu was 33 years of age, was engaged in business and also does the agricultural work and earning Rs.5,40,000/- per annum. The claimants were dependent upon him and due to his untimely death they are facing great financial crises. 3. Non-applicant No.1 filed reply to the application denying the averments made therein. It was pleaded that the offending vehicle was duly insured with non-applicant No.3. Non-applicant remained ex-parte and no reply was filed on his behalf. 4. Non-applicant No.3 filed its reply and denied the claim averment. It was pleaded that non-applicant No.1 was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle and it was being plied in breach of conditions of the insurance policy. It was also pleaded that the accident occurred due to a head-on collision between two vehicles; therefore, the deceased contributed to the accident as well. 5. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.6,25,300/- and fastened the liability upon non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company to indemnify the insured. 6. Learned counsel for appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in computing the amount of compensation under the head of loss of dependency. Though, the learned Claims Tribunal has 4 assessed income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month, upon adding 40% towards future prospects, total monthly income as Rs.6,300/-, however, towards the personal living expenses of the deceased deducted 1/4 i.e. Rs.2925/- instead of Rs.1,575/-. He next contended that learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of loss of consortium to old age father, two children but for claimant No.2 widow. Appellant No.1 is also entitled for loss of filial consortium and appellant No. 3 & 4 for parental consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. He prays for enhancement of compensation suitably. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 would submit that Insurance Company has been exonerated from liability, however, direction of pay and recover is issued as the claims Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company on the ground that driver of the offending vehicle was not possessed with valid and effective driving license. He however, submits that the compensation awarded to the claimants is just and proper, which does not call for any interference. 8. Notice issued to respondent No.2/owner of the offending vehicle is reported to be served, however, there is no representation on his behalf. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. Assessment of the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- by the learned Claims Tribunal is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. On the date of accident, deceased was aged about 33 years, therefore, there shall be addition of 40% of the established 5 income towards loss of future prospects. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,300/- per month. 11. Learned Claims Tribunal has rightly applied deduction of 1/4 towards personal living expenses of the deceased, however deducted the amount under the said head of Rs.2,925/-. 1/4 of the amount Rs.6,300/- will come to Rs.1,575/-, therefore, after deducting 1/4 under the head personal living expenses, monthly dependency comes to Rs.4,725/- and annual dependency comes to Rs.56,700/-. It is ordered accordingly. 12. Learned Claims Tribunal has correctly applied the multiplier of 16 in the facts of the case and awarded Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium to appellant No.2, which is to the tune of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 13. The award of compensation towards loss of consortium has been further explained by the 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, wherein it has been held that parents of the deceased will be entitled for filial consortium and children will be entitled for parental consortium. The appellant No.1 being father and appellants No.3 & 4 being children of deceased are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium and parental consortium respectively. It is ordered accordingly. 6 14. On the basis of above, compensation to be awarded needs recomputation, which is as under :- SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. Loss of annual income : 56,700 4. Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 16 : 56,700 x 16 = 9,07,200.00 5. For loss of spousal, filial, spousal, and parental consortium to the appellants No.1 to 4 of Rs.40,000/- each (Rs.40,000 x 4) : 1,60,000.00 6. For funeral expenses : 15,000.00 7. For loss of estate : 15,000.00 Grand Total : 10,97,200.00 15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellant shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.10,97,200.00. Any amount paid to the appellant 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. 16. 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