1 2025:CGHC:28714 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 619 of 2017 Usha Bai Kosle Wd/o Kuleshwar Kosle, Aged About 23 Years R/o Mudiadeeh, Thana Palari, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Nana Saheb S/o Shri Ram Kishan Hedal, R/o 1 Hafli Manore, Thana Pathardeeh, District Ahmednagar, Maharashtra, 2 C/o Mohansingh Yadav, Bombey Pura Roadwayes, Ring Road No.2 Gondwara, Thana Khamtarai, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...............Non Applicant No.1/ Driver Of Vehicle Truck No. M.H./12/ D T/8504 2 - Shantaram Yashwant Kawre S/o Yaswant Kawre, Through Officer, Incharge/Competent Officer, Sidhdheshwar Transport Company, Gate No.2335, Khandwe Nagar, Pune, Nagar Road Bagli Pune, District Pune, Maharashtra ...............Non Applicant No.2/ Owner Of Vehicle Truck No. M.H./12/ D T/8504 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Division No.2 The New India Insurance Company Limited, Behind Office Of Life Insurance Pandhri Raipur, Thana Pandhri, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...............Non Applicant No.3/ Insurer Of Vehicle Truck No. M.H./12/ D T/8504 4 - Sukhiram S/o Bisalta Kosle, Permanent Address- Village Janghlore, Thana Palari, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh 5 - Kera Bai W/o Sukhiram Kosle, Permanent Address Village Janghlore, Thana Palari, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.06.30 19:03:55 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : None For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 27.06.2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 09.02.2017 passed by the learned First Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim No.415/2015 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimants. 2. The Insurance Company has filed cross-appeal challenging the impugned award on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal has awarded excessive amount of compensation to the claimants as also to the effect that driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence, fitness and permit of the vehicle, as such, there was breach of policy conditions and Insurance Company be exonerated to satisfy its liability. 3. Brief facts of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that, on 10.07.2014, at about 11.45 AM, Kuleshwar (since deceased) was coming towards Urla on his Activa, at that relevant time, one Truck bearing registration No.MH-12/DT/8504 (for short, ‘offending vehicle’) coming from opposite side dashed the Activa, as a result 3 of which, Kuleshwar fell down inside the wheel of the offending vehicle and suffered grievous injuries. He was taken to different hospital, but he succumbed to the injuries on 07.08.2014. 4. The claimant-wife has filed a claim petition claiming Rs.24,94,000/- as compensation under various heads pleading therein that at the time of accident, deceased was aged about 30 years, working as Truck driver at Verma Transport, Palari and earning Rs.12,000/- per month as salary. The mother and father of the deceased have also filed claim petition with regard to compensation upon the death of their son in a motor accident. 5. Respondents No.1 and 2/non-applicants No. 1 and 2 were filed their joint written statement and denied the fact of accident. They have pleaded that at the place of incident, there was a speed breaker, as such speed of the truck was slow and deceased himself rashly and negligently driving his Activa and he himself dashed with the truck and there was no responsibility of driver of the offending vehicle in committing the accident. 6. The respondent No.3 filed its written statement in which it has denied the contents of the petition and further stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence as well as vehicle was not having valid permit and fitness, as such there was violation of breach of policy conditions. It has been further pleaded that there was contributory negligence 4 on the part of driver of both the vehicles and Insurance Company was not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 7. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, Claims Tribunal held that the deceased was aged about 27 years on the date of accident and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. While deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses and after applying the multiplier of 17, awarded an amount of Rs.16,32,000/- towards loss of dependecy. Learned Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs.1,52,445/- towards medical expenses, Rs.16,200/- towards attendant, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, as such awarded total compensation of Rs.19,55,645/- to the claimants i.e. wife, mother and father of the deceased vide common impugned award with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization and fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the driver, owner and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle. 8. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. He further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in law in not awarding any amount to towards future prospects. It has been contended that learned Claims Tribunal has failed to award the proper amount of compensation 5 under the various heads and therefore, the award deserves to be altered in order to fulfill the needs of the claimants. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that on the date of accident, driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licnece, as such, Insurance Company be exonerated to satisfy its liability to pay the amount of compensation. He further submits that in compliance of the impugned award, Insurance Company has already deposited Rs.21,67,819/- vide Cheque No.115093 dated 16.03.2017 through Axis Bank, Raipur, therefore, the cross- appeal filed by the Insurance Company be allowed and the appeal filed by the claimant be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 11. Before the learned Claims Tribunal, claimants have pleaded income of deceased to Rs.12,000/- per month while working as driver at M/s Verma Transport and in this regard, the claimant has produced attendance register (Ex.P/1) as well as salary certificate (Ex.P/2), therefore, in such circumstances of case, income of deceased is to be assessed as Rs.12,000/-. 12. The legal position now stands settled by virtue of the law declared by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transportation Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. It stands affirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). 6 Even though, it has been observed by the Claims Tribunal that the deceased was 27 years of age. In the instant case, since the accident occurred was in the year 2014, and the Tribunal has reckoned the income of deceased as Rs.12,000/- per month, i.e. Rs.1,44,000/- per annum while doing the work of driver Going by the rulings rendered by the Apex Court as cited above, in the case of persons of less than 40 years of age with fixed income, 50% of the income has to be added for fixing the future prospects, which comes to Rs.2,16,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses, annual income of deceased comes to Rs.1,44,000/-. After applying the multiplier of 17, the loss of income of deceased comes to Rs.24,48,000/-. 13. The scope of 'consortium' has been subsequently explained by the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130. It can be of three types; Parental consortium (payable to children because of the death of parents); Spousal consortium (payable to the surviving spouse because of the death of the partner) and Filial consortium (payable to the parents because of the death of children). This being the position, the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- towards loss of consortium. Further, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is payable towards funeral expenses in view of the law declared in Pranay Sethi (supra). As per the decision rendered in Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants/claimants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. 7 Further, 10% enhancement in every three years is also required to be given in respect of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium. 14. The claimants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.1,52,445 towards medical expenses and Rs.16,200/- towards attendant as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. 15. On the basis of above recalculation, the claimants i.e. appellant- wife, respondent No.4- father and respondent No.5- mother are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- Sl. No. Head Calculation Awarded amount 1. Income of deceased @ Rs.12,000/- per month Rs.,144,000/- per annum 2. 50% of (1) above to be added as future prospects 1,44,000 + 72,000 = Rs.2,16,000/- 3. 1/3rd of (2) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased 2,16,000 / 3 = Rs.72,000/- Rs.1,44,000/- 4. Compensation after multiplier of 15 applied 1,44,000 x 17 Rs.24,48,000/- 5. Towards loss of estate 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.18,000/- 6. Towards loss of consortium to all the three claimants @ Rs. 40,000/- 40,000 + 8,000 = 48,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.1,44,000/- 8 7. Funeral Expenses 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.18,000/- 8. Medical Expenses Rs.1,52,445/- 9. Towards Attendant Rs.16,200/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs.27,96,645/- 16. In the said circumstance, the total compensation comes to Rs.27,96,645/-. After deducting Rs.19,55,645/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.8,41,000/-. 17. In the result, the appeal filed by the claimant is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated herein-above. The claimant along with respondents No.4 and 5, who are father and mother of the deceased shall be entitled to Rs.8,41,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The other conditions imposed by the learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. 18. Since it is an admitted fact that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company has failed to prove the fact that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was not having valid permit and fitness, the cross-appeal filed on behalf of the Insurance Company fails and is accordingly dismissed. 9 19. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation to the claimants as modified by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. 20. Record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh