1 2025:CGHC:48091 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2024 of 2018 1 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, In Side Of Sky Auto Mobile Mohaba Bazar, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh......(Insurer Of Truck No. C.G. 07/c/3173), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Sushila Jaddi Wd/o Late Jairam Jaddi Aged About 25 Years R/o G.E. Road, Panchsheel Nagar, B.M.Y. Charoudas, Tahsil Patan, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At Ram Nagar, Bhanpuri, Khamtarai, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur Chhattisgarh......... (Claimants), 2 - Likita Jadddi D/o Late Jairam Jaddi Aged About 6 Years Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Suhila Jaddi, R/o G.E. Road, Panchsheel Nagar, B.M.Y. Charoudas, Tahsil Patan, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At Ram Nagar, Bhanpuri, Khamtarai, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur Chhattisgarh.........(Claimants), 3 - Smt. Bhagey Laxmi Jaddi W/o Shri Vallabh Rao Jaddi R/o G.E. Road, Panchsheel Nagar, B.M.Y. Charoudas, Tahsil Patan, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At Ram Nagar, Bhanpuri, Khamtarai, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur Chhattisgarh......... (Claimants), VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 4 - Shri Vallabh Rao Jaddi S/o Nayak Anna R/o G.E. Road, Panchsheel Nagar, B.M.Y. Charoudas, Tahsil Patan, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At Ram Nagar, Bhanpuri, Khamtarai, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur Chhattisgarh.........(Claimants) 5 - Shri Ashok Parekh S/o N.R. Parekh R/o Mig- 11/233, Hudco, Bhilai Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh......(Driver Of Truck No. C.G.- 07/c/3173), 6 - Shri Nammu Ram Parekh S/o Daolut Ram Pareksh R/o Mig 11/233, Hudco, Bhilai Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh........(Owner Of Truck No. C.G.- 07/c/3173) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No. 5 & 6 : None. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Judgment on Board 18.09.2025 1. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the award dated 15.10.2018 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the Court of First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, C.G., in Claim Case No. 454/2015, whereby the Tribunal awarded total compensation of ₹37,78,672/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realization, and fastened liability upon non- applicant No. 3/Insurance Company. 2. In this appeal, Respondents No.1 to 4/claimants have also filed cross-appeal/objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC 3 challenging the quantum part. 3. As per averments made in the claim petition, on 28.10.2012 at about 14:15 hours, deceased- Jairam Jaddi was going to his house at Charouda on his motorcycle bearing registration No.CG- 07-K-5160. However, on way, in front of Meghna Biri Factory at Charouda, the said motorcycle dashed the stationed truck tipper bearing registration No.CG07-C-3173 (hereinafter called as ‘offending vehicle) from back side, which was parked by non- applicant No.1 Ashok Parekh, driver of the offending vehicle, in a public place/in the mid road in a negligent manner without giving any signal or indicator, as a result of which, deceased- Jairam Jaddi sustained grievous injuries over his body and died on the spot. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant No.2 Nammu Ram Parekh and insured with non- applicant No.3/Shree Ram General Insurance Company Limited. 4. On account of the death of the deceased- Jairam Jaddi, the claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation to the tune of ₹54,68,000/-, inter alia pleading that at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 30 years and earning ₹27,000/- per month while working in the Indian Railways. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence adduced by both parties, passed the award as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company/Appellant has preferred the present appeal, while respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have 4 filed cross-appeals/objections. 5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company, whereas rider of the motorcycle/deceased was himself responsible for causing the accident because at the time of accident, rider of motorcycle/deceased- Jairam Jaddi was riding the motorcycle rashly and negligently and he himself dashed the offending vehicle. Therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation and it is prayed that Insurance Company be exonerated from its liability. 6. By way of cross-appeal, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 4 sought enhancement of compensation and submits that the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards conventional heads is on lower side, which needs to be reassessed suitably. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the matters of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 & National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. So far as contributory negligence on the part of the deceased- Jairam Jaddi, from the perusal of the evidence available on record, it appears that on the date of accident, in front of Meghna 5 Biri Factory, Charouda, driver of the offending/non-applicant No.1 had parked the offending vehicle in a negligent manner in the middle of the road without giving any signal or indicator, as a result of which, the said motorcycle rode by the deceased dashed the offending vehicle from back side, due to which, deceased sustained grievous injuries and died. Moreover, after the accident, final report (Ex.P-16) has been submitted against the driver of the offending vehicle / non-applicant No.1 under Section 304-A of IPC which shows that the driver of the offending vehicle/non-applicant No.1 is responsible for the accident as he had parked the offending vehicle in a public place without giving any signal or indicator. Furthermore, there is no counter complaint lodged by the driver of the offending vehicle/non-applicant No.1 for his false implication and that no evidence was brought on record by him that the rider of motorcycle was negligent for causing the accident. Though, the Insurance Company has taken a plea that the rider of the motorcycle himself was negligent and contributed to the accident, but no evidence in this regard has been adduced by the Insurance Company to substantiate its pleading. Therefore, in absence of such evidence, it is difficult to hold that deceased himself was responsible for causing the accident. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the Insurance Company in this regard is hereby rejected. 9. Now, this Court has to examine whether the driver of the offending vehicle was required to follow the traffic rules while parking the 6 said vehicle. 10. Section 122 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under:- “122. Leaving vehicle in dangerous position.- No person in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle or any trailer to be abandoned or to remain at rest on any public place in such a position or in such a condition or in such circumstances as to cause or likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to other users of the public place or to the passengers.” 11. Rule 109 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 reads as hereunder: “109. Parking light.- Every construction equipment vehicle and every motor vehicle other than motorcycle and three-wheeled invalid carriages shall be provided with one white or amber parking light on each side in the front. In addition to the front lights, two red parking lights one on each side in the rear shall be provided. The front and rear parking lights shall remain lit even when the vehicle is kept stationary on the road…” 12. By a combined reading of Section 122 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 109 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, it is clear that the front and rear parking lights shall remain lit even if the vehicle is kept stationary on the road. Admittedly, in the instant case, driver of the offending vehicle had not switched on the parking lights and it was parked in a public place in a negligent manner as is evident from final report (Ex.P-16) and the contents of FIR (Ex.P-1). Therefore, it is clear that there is negligence on 7 the part of the driver of the offending vehicle/non-applicant No.1 in parking the offending vehicle without switching on the parking lights to enable the passers-by to know that such a vehicle has been parked on the road. Since the offending vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company at the time of the accident, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in fastening liability upon non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company (appellant herein). 13. Now, I shall deal with the cross-appeal filed by the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 4 seeks enhancement on the amount awarded towards conventional heads. 14. The scope of 'consortium' has been subsequently explained by the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra). 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.1,60,000/- 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. Further, 10% enhancement in every three years is also required to be given in respect of loss of estate, 8 funeral expenses and loss of consortium as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Others reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076. In this manner, the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are entitled to get Rs.18,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.18,000/- towards funeral expenses, and Rs.1,92,000/- (i.e., Rs.48,000/- each), totaling Rs.2,28,000/- under the conventional heads, in place of Rs.70,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 15. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.70,000/- under this head and after deducting the same from the above amount i.e. Rs.2,28,000/-, the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are held entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.1,58,000/-. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. The Insurance Company/non-applicant No.3 (appellant herein) shall deposit the enhanced amount within a period of 60 days from the date of this judgment. 16. In the result, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, being without any substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed, whereas the cross-appeal/objection filed by the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 4 is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein above. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha