1 / 6 2025:CGHC:30980 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1831 of 2019 1. Smt. Sunita Mishra W/o Lt. Purshottam Mishra Aged About 51 Years 2. Pritu S/o Lt. Purshottam Mishra Aged About 30 Years 3. Ritu S/o Lt. Purshottam Mishra Aged About 28 Years 4. Ku. Deepti D/o Lt. Purshottam Mishra, Aged About 25 Years 5. Vijay Kumar S/o Lt. Purshottam Mishra, Aged About 23 Years • All are R/o Vindhyawasini Nagar Rajim Road, Abhanpur, P.S. Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.. • Claimant No. 6 And 7 do not want to peruse the appeal, therefore they Have Not Made Party In The Appeal), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants/ Claimants versus 1. K. Jayaraju S/o K. Jamlaiyya, R/o 74 75/ Priyadarshini Colony, Bhawanipuram Vijaywada City, P.S. Bhawanipuram, District Krishna (A.P.) At Present R/o Through Raipur- Madras Road Lines, Ring Road No. 2, P.S. Kabirnagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh...........(Driver of Truck No. A.P.-16- T.H.-8988) 2. Dannpaneni Shrinivasa Rao S/o Nageswara Rao, R/o 16-27 A/1 Saidurga Residency-A-1- Urmilanagar Road Vijaywada Urban District Vijaywada (Andhra Pradesh) (Owner of Truck No. A.P.-16-T.H.-8988) 3. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Divisional Manager, Division No. 3, R.D.A. Building Raipur In Front of Tahsil Office, Tah. and District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of Truck No. A.P.-16-T.H.-8988). --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 6 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 07/07/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01, application for condonation of delay of 49 days in filing of this appeal. 2. On due consideration of the submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties and ground mentioned in the application, I.A. No.01 is allowed and the delay of 49 days in filing of appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the case be heard finally at motion stage. 4. With the consent of the parties, case is heard finally at motion stage. 5. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the award dated 29.04.2019 passed by Learned Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 91/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 39,37,622/- as compensation. 6. Brief facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 24.11.2017 at about 11:00 am, non-applicant No. 1 while driving his motorcycle No. AP16TH8988 (henceforth “offending motorcycle”) rashly and negligently near Mana Basti, dashed the motorcycle riding by Purshottam Mishra bearing registration No. CG04CQ0417 and caused accident. In the accident, Purshottam Mishra suffered fatal injuries and succumbed to injuries. A report of the accident is lodged in the police station Mana Camp, based on which Crime No. 210/17 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC was registered. 3 / 6 7. Appellants-claimants who are widow and children of deceased filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 56,80,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was about 52 years of age, was an able bodied person. Before the accident he was posted as Head Constable in the Chhattisgarh Police Department and was earning ₹ 38,793/- per month as salary. 8. Respondent No. 1 & 2 / Non-applicant No. 1 & 2 – driver and owner of the offending motorcycle did not appear before the Claims Tribunal and no reply has been filed on their behalf, therefore, they were proceed ex parte. 9. Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company filed its reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that on the date of accident deceased was himself negligent in the accident, he was plying the vehicle without a valid driving licence and helmet. Non-applicant No. 1 driver of the offending motorcycle was also not possessed with valid and effective driving licence. There was breach of policy conditions and drivers of both the vehicles were contributory negligent in the accident. It is also stated that the applicants No. 2 to 5 are the major children of the deceased and they were not dependent. 10. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased- Purshottam Mishra died because of grievous injuries suffered by him in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending motorcycle driven by non-applicant No. 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy and contributory negligence was not found to be proved, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 39,37,622/- as total compensation with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization and fastened liability upon non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company. 4 / 6 11. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that the amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is very less. Tribunal while computing the amount of compensation deducted 1/3 instead of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses. He submits that the other ground for enhancement of amount of compensation is that the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of ₹ 40,000/- towards loss of consortium to appellant No. 1 only and not to the appellants/ claimants No. 2 to 5 who are children of the deceased. He submitted that looking to the nature of relationship between the deceased and the claimant No. 6 & 7 he has not filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation by arraying them as party. 12. Learned counsel or Respondent No. 2-Insurance Company would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellants-claimants and would submit that the deduction applied by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper as the counsel for appellants himself has submitted that Appellants No. 6 & 7 were dependent upon the deceased and further that the claimants No. 2 & 3 are the married daughters, hence, they will not be treated to be dependent upon the deceased but dependent upon their husbands. 13. The submission made by learned counsel for Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company with regard to status of claimant No. 2 & 3 ie., Pritu and Ritu to be married daughters is not disputed by the counsel for appellants. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the record of claim case. 15. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants has made two fold submission for seeking enhancement of compensation; first, that the Claims Tribunal erred in applying deduction of 1/3 instead of 1/4. In the view of the above submission made by learned counsel for the parties, and by counsel for appellants that claimants No. 2 & 3 to be married daughters and that he has not filed the appeal for claimants No. 6 & 7 being not dependent upon the 5 / 6 deceased. Therefore, considering entirety of the facts, the number of dependents upon the deceased would only remain 3 ie., claimants No. 1, 4 & 5. Application of deduction has been well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, wherein it is held that where the claimants are 2 to 3, there shall be deduction of 1/3. 16. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (surpa), Claims Tribunal has rightly applied deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses. Therefore the said finding of the Claims Tribunal cannot be said to be erroneous and it is affirmed. 17. The award of compensation under the head of loss of consortium has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and further explained in the case of Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. In the case of Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram (supra), it is held that the wife/ husband will be entitled for loss of spousal consortium, children will be entitled for loss of parental consortium and parents of deceased shall be entitled for loss of filial consortium. 18. In the case at hand, appellants-claimants No. 2 to 5 are children of deceased, they are entitled for compensation towards loss of parental consortium, irrespective of their marital status. Loss of consortium is awarded to the children because they have lost company of their parent and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, Claims Tribunal has not awarded loss of consortium to claimants No. 2 to 5. They are entitled for ₹ 40,000/- each under the head of loss of parental consortium, total of which comes to ₹ 1,60,000/- 19. Now the appellants-claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 40,97,622/- [₹ 39,37,622 (as awarded by the Claims Tribunal)+₹1,60,000] 6 / 6 instead of ₹ 39,37,622/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount paid to the appellants-claimants pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 20. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn