1 2025:CGHC:44431 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 566 of 2021 1 - Devcharan Yadav S/o Late Ganpat Yadav Aged About 57 Years R/o Darogapara Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Smt. Purnima Bai Yadav W/o Devcharan Yadav Aged About 45 Years R/o Darogapara Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Manu Rajvanshi S/o Late Raju Rajvanshi Aged About 40 Years R/o Himja Bharat, Police Station - Sirdula, District Navada (Bihar) Present Address- Baraud, Secl Camp Baraud Colliery, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Sunil Kumar Agrawal S/o Radheshyam Agrawal Aged About 50 Years R/o Seva Kunj Road, Near Girls College, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Rahul Complex, Third Floor, Dhimrapur Road, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Shri Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Shri Abhinav Tiwari, Adv. on behalf of Shri Ashish Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Shri Pravin Tulsyan, Advocate ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board 01/09/2025 This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for 2 short ‘M.V.Act’) has been filed challenging the award dated 18/08/2021 passed in claim case No.45/2020 by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, District–Raigarh (CG) (for short ‘Tribunal’). By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs.51,10,000/-, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.13,43,193/- in favour of the appellants/claimants. 2. The claim application under Section 166 of the MV Act has been filed on account of death of Sunil Yadav in an accident that occurred on 21/03/2020 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Trailor) bearing registration No.CG 13 AJ 6978 by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. As per pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was aged about 28 years and was working in a private company and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Therefore, the aforestated compensation was claimed. 3. The respondents 1 and 2 denied the averments of the claim application. The insurance company also denied averments of the claim application and took a plea that there is violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 4. On the basis of above pleadings, learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded the abovestated compensation. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the insurance company is held liable to pay compensation and award in all respect is just, however, the appellant / claimants are the parents of the deceased and no filial consortium in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130 has been awarded. Therefore, that may be awarded. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned award and 3 submits that just compensation has been awarded and no interference is warranted. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records. 9. Admittedly, the claimants are parents of the deceased. Learned Tribunal has awarded compensation in the following manner - 1. For Loss of dependency -1303193/- 2. For love and affection - 5000/- 3. For loss of estate -15000/- 4. For funeral expenses -15000/- 5. For mental agony and pain - 5000/- Total 13,43,193/- 10. In the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Magma (supra), this Court is inclined to award Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40000/- each) as filial consortium to the appellants/claimants to be deposited by the insurance company within a period of 60 days failing which interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the appeal would be payable by it. On deposit being made, learned Tribunal shall pass appropriate order with regard to disbursement. 11. The appeal, thus, partly allowed. SD/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.09.02 17:32:22 +0530