1 / 7 2025:CGHC:39611 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1959 of 2024 • Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Fafadeeh Chowk P.S. Ganj, District- Raipur, C.G. Through Its Legal Manager, Present And Correct Address- Office No. 403, 4th Floor, D B, City Corporate Park, Flat No. 1, Block No. 9, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur, C.G. (Insurer) --- Appellant/ Non-applicant No. 2 versus 1. Smt. Jaya Devi Kureel W/o Late Mithlesh Kureel Aged About 27 Years 2. Vedansh Kureel S/o Late Mithlesh Kureel Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Jaya Devi Kureel 3. Priyansh Kureel S/o Late Mithlesh Kureel Aged About 1 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Jaya Devi Kureel 4. Ram Sanjeevan Kureel S/o Late Dulare Ram Kureel Aged About 67 Years 5. Ramasti Bai Kureel W/o Ram Sanjeevan Kureel Aged About 60 Years All are R/o Bazar Chowk, Dondekhurd, P.S. Vidhansabha, District- Raipur, C.G. ….applicants/ claimants 6. Rajkumar Sahu S/o Ramsingh Sahu R/o Village Achola P.S. Tumgaon, District- Mahasamund, C.G. (Driver Cum Owner……….non-applicant No. 1 ---Respondents/ Non-applicants ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate with Ms. Harneet Kaur Khanuja, Govt. Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 5 : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Adarsh Rajput, Advocate on behalf of Mr. G.P. Kurrey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment 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 award PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 7 dated 02.07.2024 passed by Learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 63/2021, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed by applicants-claimants therein under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 40,27,500/- as compensation, fastened first liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon appellant- non-applicant No. 2/ Insurance Company. 2. Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 16.12.2019, at about 08:30 p.m., near Mandhar in front of High School under Police Station Vidhansabha, District Raipur, non-applicant No. 1, while driving motor cycle No. CG-04-DJ-8774 (hereinafter referred to as “offending motorcycle”) in a rash and negligent manner, collided with motor cycle No. CG-04-CW-3423 driven by Mithlesh Kumar Kureel. As a result, Mithlesh Kumar Kureel sustained grievous injuries on his head, stomach and other parts of the body, for which he was admitted to Laxminarayan Hospital, Semaria, where he succumbed to injuries on 26.12.2019. The matter was reported to Police Station Vidhansabha, District Raipur, on the basis of which Crime No. 137/2020 under Section 304-A IPC was registered. 3. Appellants-claimants who are widow, children and parents of deceased- Mithlesh Kumar filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 52,10,000/- on the basis of pleadings made therein. 4. In reply, non-applicant No. 1 pleaded that he possessed a valid driving licence and the vehicle was duly insured with non-applicant No. 2 on the date of accident. 5. Non-applicant No. 2, in its reply, however, denied liability, pleading that the claim was based on concealment of facts; that the deceased was admitted in Shri Laxmi Narayan Multi Specialty Hospital, Raipur, where medical records 3 / 7 indicated injuries due to slipping from the bike; that the FIR was lodged belatedly on 04.06.2020; that no post-mortem was conducted; and that the deceased himself was negligent as he had no licence and was not wearing a helmet. On these grounds, the insurer pleaded non-liability for compensation. 6. Ms. Harneet Kaur, learned counsel for appellant-insurance company would submit that in Ext. P-6, LAMA summary report prepared by the doctor, there is specific mention that “RTA due to collapsed, bike near donde road mandir”. She submits that from the aforementioned facts and cause of accident as mentioned in Ext. P-6, it is apparent that the deceased suffered fatal motor accidental injuries on account of fall from the motor cycle due to his own negligence. There is no involvement of other vehicle. She also referred to Ext. P-11 to submit that in the prescription of Lahoti Digestive Disease Center and Liver Clinic, it is mentioned that ‘patient not brought’ which shows that the story narrating the accident caused with the other vehicle is a cooked up story. 7. Mr. Rakesh Thakur, learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 5 would submit that the Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings made in application, evidence available on record has rightly come to conclusion that the deceased while driving the motor cycle met with an accident with other vehicle (motorcycle) bearing number CG04 DJ 8774 due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by non-applicant No. 1 He also contended that the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, hence, it does not call for any interference. He however submits that the claimants have also filed cross objection seeking enhancement of amount of compensation on the ground that the Claims Tribunal fell into error in not awarding loss of consortium to all the claimants. 8. Mr. Adarsh Rajput, learned counsel for Respondent No. 6 would support the impugned award. He would submit that the vehicle owned by Respondent 4 / 7 No. 6 was insured with appellant-insurance company and therefore the Claims Tribunal justified in fastening liability upon insurance company to satisfy the amount of compensation. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 10. The gist of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for appellant- insurance company is that the vehicle insured by the appellant- insurance company was not involved in the accident and the deceased suffered fatal injury due to falling from the motorcycle driven by him. In F.I.R. Ext. P-2, it is reported that the offending motorcycle driven rashly and negligently by non- applicant No. 1 dashed the motorcycle driven by deceased and caused accident. The report was lodged by one Ramsajiwan Kureel, one of the police official. Date of F.I.R. though mentioned as 04.06.2020, however, contents of it under the head of first information, it is mentioned that morgue information was supplied to the police station on 05.02.2020 and it appears after morgue enquiry, F.I.R. was registered on 04.06.2020. Death of deceased appears to be in hospital during treatment and it is for the concerned hospital to forward the morgue information to the concerned police station which is the procedure to be followed when any person dies in hospital during treatment with the motor accidental injuries or unnatural death. 11. Appellant-insurance company examined the Law Officer of the Company, Mr. Yash Raikwar as NAW-2-1. In his evidence, he stated that the report was lodged after 171 days, however, the reason of delay is not clear. He has not made any other statement with regard to happening of accident. He admitted in the cross examination that in Ext. P-6 & P-9 there is no specific mention that the deceased was travelling on motorcycle and fell down due to his own negligence. 5 / 7 12. Claimants have examined Smt. Jaya Devi as AW-1 and Rajkumar Chelak as AW-2. Rajkumar Chelak is examined as eye-witness to the accident. In para- 4 of his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion given by counsel for non-applicant No. 1 therein that the deceased suffered injuries on account of skidding off motorcycle on road. Nothing adverse has come in his evidence to disbelieve evidence of this witness and the pleadings made in the claim application and stated by the claimants before the Claims Tribunal. 13. True it is that strict proof like criminal case is not required for deciding the claim cases, it is to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The arguments raised by learned counsel for appellant- insurance company that in Ext. P-11 it is mentioned that patient was not brought is concerned, in Ext. P-11 it appears that it only mentioned test report. The other medical document filed as Ext. P-10 mentions the nature of injury and the test which the deceased Mithlesh Kureel underwent during course of treatment. 14. On due consideration of entire material available on record and the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal, in the opinion of this Court, Claims Tribunal has not erred in recording a finding that the deceased met with an accident with offending motorcycle driven by Respondent No. 6 herein. 15. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant-insurance company is sans merit, which is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 16. So far as cross-objection filed by the Respondents No. 1 to 5/ claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation on the ground that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded sufficient amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium to all the claimants is concerned, Claims Tribunal has awarded ₹ 1,20,000 (ie., ₹ 40,000 to 3 claimants) towards loss of consortium. The award of compensation under the head of loss of consortium was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors, reported in (2017) 6 / 7 16 SCC 680, wherein compensation under loss of consortium is quantified as ₹ 40,000. Types of consortium to be awarded to claimants is further explained by the 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 wherein it is held that apart from loss of spousal consortium to widow/ husband, children and parents of the deceased will also be entitled for loss of consortium under the head of loss of parental consortium and loss of filial consortium of ₹ 40,000 each respectively. In the case at hand, Respondents No. 2 & 3 are children and Respondents No. 4 & 5 are parents of deceased, therefore, they will also be entitled for loss of parental consortium and loss of filial consortium of ₹ 40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly. 17. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has further observed that compensation under the head of other conventional heads is to be increased by 10% after every three years. Therefore, amount of compensation under the heads of funeral expenses would be ₹ 16,500 from ₹ 15,000, loss of estate would be ₹ 16,500 from ₹ 15,000, and loss of consortium would be ₹ 44,000 each from ₹ 40,000, for the the claimants will be entitled. 18. Apart from the compensation as awarded under the heads as discussed above, claimants shall also be entitled for ₹ 33,07,500 towards loss of dependency, ₹ 5,70,000 towards medical expenses, as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 19. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to claimants requires re-computation, which is as under. Particulars Compensation Annual Loss of income/ dependency = ₹ 33,07,500 ₹ 33,07,500/- Loss of Spousal Consortium to Appellant No. 1 ₹ 44,000/- Loss of parental consortium to Respondents No. ₹ 1,76,000/- 7 / 7 2 & 3; Loss of Filial Consortium to Respondents No. 4 & 5 (₹ 44,000 x 4) Loss of estate ₹ 16,500/- Funeral Expenses ₹ 16,500/- Medical Expenses ₹ 5,70,000/- Total ₹ 41,30,500/- 20. Now the claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 41,30,500/- instead of ₹ 40,27,500/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry 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. Consequently, appeal filed by the appellant-insurance company is dismissed being sans merit and the cross-appeal filed by the Respondents No. 1 to 5/ claimants is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn