1 2025:CGHC:30993 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1608 of 2018 • Cholamandlam General Insurance Company Ltd., Registered And Head Office Dhare House, 2nd Floor No. 2 N.S.C. Bose Road Chennai, Through Manager, Regional Office 2nd Floor Raipur Simiran Towers, Opposite LIC Building Pandri Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer). ... Appellant versus 1. Smt. Nirmala Bai Sahu, W/o Late Jeevan Lal Sahu, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Village Gureda, Ward No. 11, Post Danganiya, Tehsil Gunderdehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 2. Loknath Sahu, S/o Late Jeevan Lal Sahu, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Gureda, Ward No. 11, Post Danganiya, Tehsil Gunderdehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 3. Chandrshekhar, S/o Late Jeevan Lal Sahu, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Gureda, Ward No. 11, Post Danganiya, Tehsil Gunderdehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 4. Smt. Dipika Sahu, W/o Jageshwar Sahu, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Ganiyari, Post Rasmada, Tehsil & District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 5. Manoj Kumar Sahu, S/o Parsram Sahu, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Kasahi, P.S. Doundilohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 6. Premlal Dewangan, S/o Jeevan Lal Dewangan, Aged About 52 Years, R/o House No.480/4, Laxmi Devi Para, Doundilohara, P.S. Doundilohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents/Claimants (Cause title taken from Case Information System) 2 For Appellant : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 07/07/2025 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988'), questioning the legality and propriety of the award dated 30.06.2018 passed by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod (C.G.) in Claim Case No.91/2017, whereby the learned Tribunal while allowing the claim in part has awarded the total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.7,51,500/- with 10% interest per annum in favour of the claimants from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.07.2017, the deceased Jeevanlal was coming to Village Bhimkanhar from Village Keri Jugera on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.CG-07-LK-0591 along with Umendra Sahu and when he reached Mangchuva Road, a motorcycle driven by the non applicant No.1 Manoj rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, as a result of which Jeevanlal sustained severe injuries and was admitted to Government Hospital, Dondilohara, where he was declared dead. Thereafter, a case was registered against the non applicant No.1. Subsequently, a claim petition was filed by the claimants before the learned Claims Tribunal who are the family members of the deceased, which was partly allowed and Rs.7,51,500/- was awarded in favour of the claimants payable by the appellant insurance company, against which the present appeal has been filed by 3 the appellant insurance company. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company submits that the deduction in respect of personal income has wrongly been calculated. As such the 4th claimant is themarried daughter of the deceased as such she will not be entitled for compensation. She can only be entitled for loss of consortium. The other ground which has been raised that Rs.1 Lakh has been awarded as for love and affection and Rs.25,000/- for funeral expenses which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and Others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal should be reconsidered and modified as per the grounds raised by the appellant insurance company. 4. No one appears on behalf of the claimants, though notices have been served to them. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the rival submissions of both the parties. 6. So far as the deduction in respect of personal expesenses is concerned, as the claimant No.4/respondent No.4 is a married daughter, as such she will not be entiled for considering the deduction in respect of personal expenses, as such deduction would be 1/3rd and not 1/4th. So far as the other heads are concnered, the consortium would be payable to all claimants, there are as many as 4 claimants, as such it would come to Rs.40,000/- each and total would be Rs.1,60,000/-. Accordingly, the following heads are recalculated and the income has been considered to Rs.78,000/- and 1/3rd of the same 4 is Rs.26,000/- and after and after applying multiplier of 9 in the said income, the total is Rs.234000/- (26000x9). Therefore, now the claimants are entitled to the total compensation of Rs.4,24,000/- (Rs.160000+234000+15000+15000). 7. The appeal is accordingly modified and the other conditions of the award shall be same. The claimants are held entitled to get the compensation, as stated above. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge DEEPTI JHA NIRALA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA NIRALA