1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 767 of 2024 Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Office No. 403, 4th Floor, Db, City Corporate Park, Flat No. 1, Block No. 9, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1 - Pratap Khadiya S/o Sukdev Khadiya Aged About 50 Years Occupation Labour, R/o Village Badimal, Post Pusalda, Tahsil And P.S. Pussour, District Raigarh (C.G.). 2 - Smt. Sulochana W/o Pratap Khadiya Aged About 42 Years Occupation Housewife, R/o Village Badimal, Post Pusalda, Tahsil And P.S. Pussour, District Raigarh (C.G.). 3 - Syamsunder S/o Pratap Khadiya Aged About 19 Years Occupation Student, R/o Village Badimal, Post Pusalda, Tahsil And P.S. Pussour, District Raigarh (C.G.). 4 - Ku. Soniya D/o Pratap Khadiya Aged About 17 Years Being Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Pratap Khadiya, S/o Sukdev Khadiya, R/o Village Badimal, Post Pusalda, Tahsil And P.S. Pussour, District Raigarh (C.G.). 5 - Natwar Mahakund S/o Sira Mahakund Aged About 47 Years Occupation Owner, R/o Sanindipur, Post Patamunda, P.S. Koyda, District Sundergarh (Odisha) (Owner Bearing No. O.D. 09-P-9087). 6 - Dhaneshwarram S/o Late Ritlal Aged About 56 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Assdhir, P.S. Katkam Sande, District Hajaribag (Jharkhand) (Driver Bearing No. O.D. 09-P-9087). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Harneet Kaur Khanuja, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate 2 For Respondents No. 1 to 4 /Claimants : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 11/11/2025 1. The Insurance Company/appellant has filed this appeal assailing quantum part of the award dated 26.10.2023, passed by the learned II nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh passed in Claim Case No. 145/2022, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,96,680/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum on account of death of Chandrakant Khadiya. 2. Ms. Harneet Kaur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the deceased Chandrakant Khadiya met with an accident on 17.07.2022 and succumb to the injuries. She would submit that the parents and siblings filed claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act and claimed Rs. 51,02,000/-. Ms. Kaur would further submit that the deceased was bachelor but the learned Tribunal deducted 1/3rd for personal and living expenses of the deceased, which is not in consonance with the judgment laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma & ors. v. Delhi Trasport Corp. & anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121) and affirmed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680. She would fairly submit that learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased and 3 granted compensation on other conventional heads too. She would also submit that as the father of the deceased was alive, therefore, siblings would be treated dependent to their father and deduction would be ½ instead of 1/3rd; thus, she would pray to modify the award. 3. Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4, supports the award passed by the learned Tribunal. He submits that the deduction of 1/3rd made by the learned Tribunal is just and proper, considering the number of dependents. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of consortium for the siblings (Claimants No.3 and 4), hence he prays that appropriate modification may be made in the award. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. It is well settled principle of law that the object of granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is to award just and reasonable compensation, irrespective of the amount claimed by the claimants. (See: Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh & Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 274.) 6. In the present case, the deceased was a bachelor. The claimants No.1 & 2 are his father and mother whereas, claimants No. 3 & 4 are siblings. 7. In the matter of Sarla Verma (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where the deceased is a bachelor and the claimants include parents and siblings, the mother alone is to be treated as a dependent, and 50% of the income should be deducted towards personal and 4 living expenses. This principle has been reiterated in Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65, and in Pranay Sethi (supra). 8. In the instant case, since the father is alive and therefore, it can’t be held that the siblings were dependent upon the deceased; thus, the appropriate deduction should be 50%. Though the claimants have not filed cross appeal or separate appeal for enhancement of compensation but looking to the fact that the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for loss of consortium to the claimant No.3 & 4, the prayer made by Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh is hereby accepted and it is held that the claimants No. 3 & 4 shall be entitled to get compensation for loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- each, along with 20% enhancement as per Pranay Sethi (supra). The compensation is recomputed as under:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 9800X 12 1,17,600/- Rs. 1,17,600/- 2. Deduction 1/3 = 1,17,600- 39,000 = 78,400/- ½ = 58,800/- 3. Multiplier X 18 = 14,11,200 X 18 = 10,58,400/- 4. Future Prospect 40 % = 14,11,200+5,64,480 = 19,75,680 /- 40 % = 10,58,400 +4,23,360 = 14,81,760/- 5. Loss of Estate 16,500/- 16,500/- 5 6. Funeral expenses 16,500/- 16,500/- 7. Loss of Consortium (parents) 44,000 x 2 = 88,000/- (parents + siblings ) = 88,000+96,000 = 1,84,000/- Total Rs. 20,96,680/- Rs.16,98,760/- Final Compensation Rs. 20,96,680- 16,98,760 Rs.3,97,920/- 10. In view of the above calculation, the total compensation stands reduced to Rs.16,98,760/- instead of Rs.20,96,680/-. The claimants are held entitled to get compensation of Rs.16,98,760/-. The rest of terms and condition of the award shall remain intact. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim