1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 84 of 2020 1. Smt. Rukhmani Dhruw W/o Late Naresh Singh Dhruw Aged About 43 Years No. 3 And 4 Are Minor, Represented Through Mother Smt. Rukhmani Dhruw, Resident Of Village- Khapri, Tahsil - Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2. Ravishankar Dhruw S/o Late Naresh Singh Dhruw Aged About 20 Years No. 3 And 4 Are Minor, Represented Through Mother Smt. Rukhmani Dhruw, Resident Of Village- Khapri, Tahsil - Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3. Kumari Sushma Dhruw D/o Late Naresh Singh Dhruw Aged About 17 Years No. 3 And 4 Are Minor, Represented Through Mother Smt. Rukhmani Dhruw, Resident Of Village- Khapri, Tahsil - Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4. Ravindra Dhruw S/o Late Naresh Singh Dhruw Aged About 14 Years No. 3 And 4 Are Minor, Represented Through Mother Smt. Rukhmani Dhruw, R/o village Khapri, Tahsil Takhatpur, Distt Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1. Mukesh Kumar Bhardwaj S/o Aatmaram Bhardwaj Aged About 28 Years Resident of Village - Bharni, P.S. - Chakarbhatha, Tahsil - Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Driver of Motorcycle No. C.G-10-ZR-9051. 2. Sachin Kumar Pandey S/o Kanti Kumar Pandey Resident Of Masturi, P.S. And Tahsil - Masturi, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Owner of Motorcycle No. C.G.-10-ZE-9051), 3. Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Rama Trade Center, In Front Of Rajeev Plaza, Near Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Insurer Of Motorcycle No. C.G.-10-Ze-9051) NISHA DUBEY Digitally signed by NISHA DUBEY 2 ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : None though served. For Respondent No.2 : None For Respondent No.3 : Mr. N.K. Malviya, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 28/04/2025 1. As per office note, notice issued to respondent No.1 is received back unserved with note “ckgj x;k gS”. 2. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that the Claims Tribunal has fastened liability to satisfy the impugned award upon respondent No.3- Insurance Company; appeal challenging the impugned award has not been filed by Insurance Company, hence, service of notice upon respondent No.2 be dispensed with and appeal be heard finally. 3. Submission of learned counsel for appellants with respect to fastening of liability upon respondent No.3 is not disputed by learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 4. As there is representation on behalf of respondent No.3 and liability to satisfy the compensation is upon respondent No.3, service of notice upon respondent No.2 is hereby dispensed with. 5. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 6. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal challenging the award dated 30.6.2017 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.630/2014 whereby the Claims Tribunal allowed application of claimants in part; awarded compensation of Rs.49,72,989/- to 3 claimants/appellants herein in a fatal accident case. 7. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 1.8.2013 at about 11:00 a.m. Naresh Singh Dhruw (since deceased) left the house for his work place on motorcycle bearing registration number CG10-NA-1026. When he reached near Jarondha Basti turn, motor cycle bearing bearing registration No.CG10-ZE-9051 (henceforth ‘the offending vehicle’), which was coming from opposite direction and driven rashly and negligently by non-applicant No.1, dashed his motorcycle and caused accident. In that accident, Naresh Singh Dhruw sustained grievous injuries on various parts of body. Accident was reported to concerned police station based on which Crime No.332/2013 for commission of alleged offence under Sections 279 & 337 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. He was taken to Mundada Hospital, Mangla Road, Bilaspur where he remain admitted from 1.8.2013 to 8.8.2013 and thereafter he was taken to Narayana Hospital, Raipur where he was treated from12.8.2013 to 20.9.2013. As there was no improvement in health condition of Naresh Singh Dhruw, he was taken back home where he died on 6.10.2023. 8. Claimants/appellants herein, who are widow and children of deceased, filed an application claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.75,39,425/- under various heads on the ground that on the date of accident, deceased was working as Assistant (Cash Caring) in National Insurance Company Limited, getting Rs.25,281/- per month as salary and they were dependent on earning of deceased. 9. Non-applicant No.1 submitted reply opposing the application. It was pleaded in reply that accident occurred due to own negligence of 4 deceased as he was driving motorcycle in drunken condition. There was no negligence on the part of non-applicant No.1. Claimants have sought exaggerated compensation. If any compensation is awarded by the Tribunal, then since the offending vehicle was insured with non- applicant No.3 and there was no violation of any condition of insurance policy, therefore, non-applicant No.3 is liable to satisfy the entire compensation. 10.Non-applicant No.2 submitted reply to application opposing the averments made therein. It was denied that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by non-applicant No.1. He had already sold the vehicle prior to date of accident to Jai Sai Baba Auto-deal, Idgah Chowk, Bilaspur, who in turn sold it to one Gajendra Suryavanshi. In case the Claims Tribunal finds the claimants entitle for compensation then the vehicle being insured with non-applicant No.3 and non-applicant No.1 was possessing valid and effective driving license on the date of accident, non-applicant No.2 is not liable for any compensation. 11.Non-applicant No.3-Insurance Company filed its reply and denied averments made in claim application including that deceased was employed on the post of Assistant (Cash Caring) in National Insurance Company Ltd. and earning Rs.26,581/- per month. No accident has taken place from motorcycle No.CG10/ZE/9051. Non-applicant No.1 and deceased Naresh both were not having driving license and therefore non-applicant No.3 is not liable to pay compensation. Accident occurred on account of falling of deceased himself from motorcycle. Owner and insurer of motorcycle which deceased was 5 driving were necessary parties but they have not impleaded in application. Accident was the result of collusion of two vehicles, therefore, the principle of contributory negligence would attract in the present case. 12.Upon appreciating the pleadings and evidence brought on record (oral and documentary both) by the respective parties, the Claims Tribunal arrived at conclusion that claimants have been able to prove occupation and income of deceased by producing clinching and cogent evidence and accordingly fixed monthly income of deceased; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by non-applicant No.1; there was no element of contributory negligence and there was no violation of any condition of insurance policy. The Claims Tribunal has allowed the application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.49,72,981/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. and fastened liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon respondent No.3-Insurance Company. 13. Learned counsel for appellant submits that as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680; Magma General Insurance Co. ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and others, (2021) 11 SCC 780, the consortium is also to be awarded to the children and parents of the deceased. However, the Claims Tribunal has not awarded anything to appellant No.2 to 4, who are children of deceased, towards consortium and therefore he prays for awarding the amount to appellant No. 2 to 5 in the above head. He further submits that the Claims Tribunal has not 6 awarded any amount under the head ‘loss of love and affection’. Hence, he prays for enhancement of compensation suitably. 14. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposing submissions made by counsel for appellants, would submit that learned Claims Tribunal because as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), there is no head of ‘loss of love and affection’ for awarding compensation. He submits that the impugned award passed by learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper in the facts of the case, which does not call for any interference. 15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 16. As regards the first ground raised by learned counsel for appellant regarding non-grant of compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’ to appellants No.2 to 4, perusal of impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to wife only. Whereas, deceased was survived by wife and three children. 17. In case of Pranay Sethi (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is ‘Loss of Consortium’ and the amount to be awarded under this head is fixed as Rs.40,000/-. In case of Nanu Ram (supra), after referring to the decision of Constitution Bench in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), has discussed about granting the compensation under the head of loss of consortium and has also explained types of consortium i.e. loss of 'spousal consortium', 'parental consortium' and 'filial consortium'. Relevant para of the decision is as follows:- 7 "21.A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) 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, co-operation,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 agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.” 18. In case of Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur (supra), a Three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 28.Three Conventional Heads in Pranay Sethi (supra), the Constitution Bench held that in death cases, compensation would be awarded only under three conventional heads viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral 8 expenses. The Court held that the conventional and traditional heads, cannot be determined on percentage basis, because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination of income, the said heads have to be quantified, which has to be based on a reasonable foundation. It was observed that factors such as price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates, are aspects which have to be taken into consideration. The Court held that reasonable figures on 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…...” 19. In light of above quoted decisions, it is clear that the children who lose their parents in a road accident are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium. So, in view of above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Claims Tribunal should have awarded amount towards loss of parental consortium to appellant No.2 to 4 herein at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each. Hence, appellants No.2 to 4 each is awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/-, total Rs.1,20,000/-, towards loss of parental consortium. 20. As regards submission of learned counsel for appellant that nothing was awarded under the head ‘loss of love and affection’, in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in death cases the compensation would be awarded only under three conventional heads, viz., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. Any compensation towards ‘loss of love and affection’ has not been included under conventional head, which has now been further reiterated in case of Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur (supra). Thus it is now well settled that once loss of consortium is granted, compensation cannot be awarded for ‘loss of love and affection’ as it would result in duplication or overlapping. Therefore, in the considered 9 opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal justified in not awarding any amount towards ‘loss of love and affection’ to the claimants. 21.For the foregoing discussion and reason, the appeal is allowed in part. Appellants No.2 to 4 will be entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each i.e. total Rs.1,20,000/-, towards parental consortium. Now the appellants will be entitled for total compensation of Rs.50,92,989/- (4972989+120000) in place of Rs.49,72,989/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Amount awarded by this Court shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 22.Any amount already paid to appellants as compensation shall be adjusted from total amount of compensation as calculated above. 23.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge nisha