1 2025:CGHC:22925 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1613 of 2019 1. Smt. Anupa Prasad W/o - Late Satyanarayan Prasad Aged About 25 Years R/o - Quarter No. 01/a, Street No. 22/a, Sector - 7, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh 2. Ku. Chanchal D/o - Late Satnarayan Prasad Aged About 2 Years Appellant No 2 Through Her Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Anupa Prasad W/o - Late Satyanarayan Prasad, R/o - Quarter No. 01/c, Street No. 26, Sector - 11, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3. Sheela Devi W/o - Late Ramkaran Prasad Aged About 55 Years R/o - Quarter No. 01/a, Street No. 22/a, Sector - 7, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants-Claimants versus 1. Praveen Kumar S/o - Kishan @ Krishanram Aged About 25 Years R/o - Quarter No. 01/c, Street No. 26, Sector - 11, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle Truck Trailer No. - Cg-07-B.J. - 3978 And Trolly No. P.B. - 062/9564), 2. Amit Kumar Singh S/o - Sheshnath Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o - Near Radha Krishna Mandir, Bank Of Canal Panjabi Mohall Khursipar Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle Truck Trailer No. - Cg-07-B.J. - 3978 And Trolly No. P.B. - 062/9564), 2 3. Future Generally India Insurance Company Limited, Corporate And Registered Office, 6th Floor, Tower-3, India Bulse Finance Center, Senapati Bapat Marg, Alfinstan Road Mumbai 40013 (Maharashtra) (Insurer Vehicle Truck Trailer No. Cg-07-B.J. - 3978 And Trali No. P.B. - 062 /9564). ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr.Amit Nayak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 10/06/2025 1. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal challenging the award dated 5.7.2019 passed by learned 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.151/2018 by which learned Claims Tribunal allowed application of appellants in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.33,77,860/- to claimant/appellants herein, in an injury case. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that appellants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.51,46,624/- under various heads, for the death of deceased Satyanarayan Prasad in a motor vehicular accident. According to claimants, who are widow, daughter and mother of deceased, on 20.11.2017 at about 9:00 p.m. deceased along with his friend was coming back home from 3 school on the motorcycle. He was travelling as a pillion. On the way opposite to State Bank of India, Vasundhara Nagar, Main Road Old Bhilai, truck-trailer bearing registration mark CG07-BJ-3978, driven in a rash and negligent manner by non-applicant No.1, dashed their motorcycle from behind and caused accident. In the said accident, Satyanarayan Prasad sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted in Narayana Hospital, Raipur where he died on 28.11.2017 while undergoing treatment. 3. Non-applicant No.1 did not appear despite service of notice and hence proceeded ex-parte. Non-applicant No.2 filed his reply to application denying averments made therein including negligence alleged against non-applicant No.1. He also pleaded that on the date of alleged accident, non-applicant No.1 was having valid and effective driving license, the offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3, therefore, compensation, if any, is awarded then insurance company is liable to make payment of the same. 4. Non-applicant No.3 Insurance Company filed its reply specifically denying averments made in claim application. It was pleaded that driver of motorcycle also contributed to accident. At the time of accident, driver of offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective license and as such, there was violation of conditions of insurance policy and 4 therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. 5. Upon appreciating the pleadings and evidence brought on record (oral and documentary both) by the respective parties, the Claims Tribunal arrived at conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1; there was no element of contributory negligence. The Claims Tribunal has allowed application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.33,77,660/- together with interest @ 9% p.a. and since it was found that the offending vehicle was plied on road in violation of conditions of insurance policy, respondent No.3- Insurance Company though exonerated from its liability, however, directed to first pay compensation to claimants and then to recover the same from the owner of offending vehicle. 6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that he is pressing this appeal only on the ground that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded sufficient amount of compensation under other conventional heads to the appellants-claimants. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that respondent No.3 Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to satisfy the impugned award and respondent No.1 and 2 have been held responsible jointly and severally. He further submits that amount of compensation awarded by the 5 Claims Tribunal is just and proper in the given facts of the case and does not call for any interference. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Taking into consideration the documents produced on record regarding government employment and income of deceased, the Claims Tribunal has assessed his income as Rs.18,377/- per month. Keeping in view the age of the deceased to be 36 years and the fact that he was in government job, 50% increase in his annual income was added towards future prospects and his annual income was taken as Rs.3,30,786/-. The Claims Tribunal considering number of claimants i.e. three, applied deduction of 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of deceased and loss of annual dependency was worked out as Rs.2,20,524/-. Considering the age of the deceased as 36 years, multiplier of 15 was applied and dependency was worked out as Rs.33,07,860/-, which is correct and does not call for any interference. Besides that, a sum of Rs.15,000/- each was awarded towards funeral expenses and loss of estate, which is in consonance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. 10. The Claims Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, which is not in consonance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma 6 General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 130, according to which, a sum of Rs.40,000/- each shall be awarded to the widow of deceased, her children and parents of deceased, towards spousal, parental and filial consortium respectively. Hence, the Claims Tribunal ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- to each appellant herein, which comes to Rs.1,20,000/- (40000x3). Accordingly, the appellants, who are widow, daughter and mother of deceased, are held entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each i.e. Rs.1,20,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. 11. Consequently, the appellants will now be entitled for total compensation of Rs.34,97,860/- in stead of Rs.33,77,860/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of application till actual realization. Any amount disbursed to appellants pursuant to the impugned award will be adjusted from the amount of compensation as awarded above. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 12. 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 roshan/-