1 2025:CGHC:39565 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2021 of 2018 1. Ramhin Bai, Wd/o Late Rajkumar, aged about 22 Years, 2. Ishant Kumar, S/o Late Rajkumar, aged about 2 Years, 3. Kumari Dipika, D/o Late Rajkumar, aged about 8 Years, Nos. 2 & 3 minor through Natural Guardian Mother Ramhin Bai Wd/o Late Rajkumar, 4. Rambati Bai, Wd/o Late Shatruhan, aged about 48 Years, All Caste Halba, R/o Village Bhurbhushi, Tahsil and Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus • Human Lal Bhuarya, S/o Birkhan Lal, aged about 25 Years, R/o Village Kunwardalli, Police Station Ambagarh, Chowki, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. • Shraddha Maa Bamleshwari Swa Sahayata Samun, Through President Village Arajkund, Tahsil Ambagarh Chowki District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. • Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited Parakh Bhawan Station Road, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-appellants For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board (07.08.2025) 1. This appeal is filed by the claimants against the award dated 16.05.2018 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Rajnandgaon, C.G., in Claim Case No. 52/2015, whereby a total compensation of Rs. 10,33,900/- has been awarded to the claimants with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till realization, fixing liability on non-applicants No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally, while exonerating non-applicant No. 3/Insurance Company from its liability. 2. As per the claim petition, on 22.04.2014, the deceased, Rajkumar, aged about 27 years and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month by working as a Khalasi/Conductor, died in a motor vehicular accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. CG08- L-2215 (hereinafter referred to as the 'offending vehicle') by non- applicant No.1. At the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant No.2 and insured with non-applicant No.3. 3. Upon a claim petition being filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 38,94,000/- under various heads, the Tribunal, after considering the evidence led by both parties, passed an award as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal failed to appreciate that AW-1, Ramhin Bai—the wife of the deceased—specifically stated in paragraph 2 of her statement that the deceased was working as a conductor in the said vehicle, and there 3 was no rebuttal of her evidence by the Insurance Company. He further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal failed to consider that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had jointly filed their reply and, in paragraphs 3 to 6, admitted that the deceased was working as a conductor in the said vehicle. He also submits that, at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company under a commercial vehicle package policy, and as per the terms of the said policy, the liability of a paid driver, conductor, and cleaner employed for operation is also covered. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation, and it is prayed that non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 be exonerated from liability. He further submits that the amount awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal under conventional heads is on the lower side and needs to be suitably enhanced. In support of above contention, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 & Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanuram @ Chuhru Ram and others in Civil Appeal No.9581/2018 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.3192/2018. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/insurance company supports the impugned award and submits that the Tribunal, after considering all the relevant aspects of the matters, has rightly fastened the liability upon the non-applicant Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally which needs no interference by this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. As regards liability, in the reply filed on behalf of non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2, it was stated that the deceased was working as a conductor. 4 However, no evidence was adduced by them to substantiate this claim. Non-applicant No. 3/Insurance Company contended that the offending vehicle was registered as a goods carriage and that, under the terms of the insurance policy issued for the said vehicle, no premium had been paid by the owner for coverage of any passenger travelling in the vehicle. Further, AW-1 Ramhin Bai, in her statement, deposed that the deceased had gone to Gunderdehi on 22.04.2014 to purchase weeding goods and, while returning, the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of non-applicant No. 1. However, in paragraph 4 of her cross- examination, she admitted that her husband (the deceased) had actually gone to Bhandaribharda for her brother’s marriage procession. There is no cogent evidence on record to establish that the deceased was employed in the said vehicle. 8. From the above, it stands proved that the deceased was travelling in the said vehicle as a passenger, and not as a conductor or cleaner. The insurance policy does not cover the risk of any passenger, and no additional premium was paid by the owner of the offending vehicle for such coverage. Thus, there was a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the date of the accident. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability upon non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, and in exonerating the Insurance Company/non-applicant No. 3 from its liability. 9. So far as the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), laid down binding principles regarding standard 5 amounts to be awarded under conventional heads in a death case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In paragraph 59.8 of the judgment, it was held as follows::- “59.8. The conventional heads namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The amount should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.” 10. Likewise, the Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra), while dealing with the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), has observed in paras 21, 21.1, 21.2, 21.3, 22 and 23 as under:- “21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which encompasses “spousal consortium”, “parental consortium”, and “filial consortium”. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse: 21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation”. 21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training”. 21.3 Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest 6 agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, championship and their role in the family unit. 22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognised that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. 23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium.” 11.In view of dictum rendered in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited & Pranay Sethi (supra), I, therefore, propose to re- compute the compensation by taking into account the number of dependents i.e. 4. As the appellant No.1 is the wife of deceased, she is entitled to be awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium. Appellant Nos. 2 & 3, who are the children of the deceased, are also entitled to be awarded Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium. Likewise, appellant No.4, who is the mother of the deceased, is also entitled to be awarded Rs.40,000/- towards filial 7 consortium. These amounts will increase by 10% every three years. Likewise, an amount awarded Rs.15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss is estate as awarded by the Tribunal would also increased by 10% every three years. In this way, the claimants are held entitled for compensation in the following manner: Sl. No. Heads Calculation (in rupees) 01. Income of the deceased @ Rs.4,500/- per month. Rs.54,000/- per annum 02. 40% of (i) above to be added towards future prospects. Rs.21,600/- Rs.54,000/- + Rs.21,600/- = Rs.75,600/- 03. ¼ deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased Rs.18,900/- Rs.75,600/- - Rs.18,900/- = Rs.56,700/- 04. Multiplier of 17 to be applied Rs.9,63,900/- 05. Towards Funeral Rs.18,000/- 09. Towards loss of estate Rs.18,000/- 10. Towards loss of consortium to claimants Rs.48,000/- x 4 = 1,92,000/- Total Compensation Rs.11,91,900/- Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.10,33,900/-, after deducting the same from the above amount i.e. Rs.11,91,000/-, the claimants are held entitled for additional compensation of Rs.1,58,000/- with interest as awarded by the learned claims Tribunal. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 8 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the impugned award to the above extent. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha