-1- 2025:CGHC:18859 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 925 of 2020 1 - Sudamaram Sahu S/o Manrakhan Lal Sahu, Aged About 40 Years 2 - Smt. Keshari Bai Sahu, W/o Sudamaram Sahu, Aged About 38 Years 3 - Ku. Neha Sahu, D/o Sudamaram Sahu, Aged About 14 Years Appellant No.3 is Minor Through Legal Guardian Father Sudamaram Sahu All R/o Village Bhanpuri, Post Tarsivan, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh .............… Claimant ---Appellant(s) versus 1 - Jai Prakash Meshram S/o Nandkumar Meshram, R/o Village Bhanpuri Post Tarsivan Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. .................Driver 2 - Nilmani Sinha S/o Ghanshyam Sinha, R/o Village Arjuni, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ..................Owner 3 - Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, M.B. Trade Center, Makai Chowk- Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ..................Insurer --- Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Resp. No.1 & 2 : Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate For Resp. No.3 : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate ____________________________________________________________ -2- MAC No. 835 of 2020 1 - Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited M. B. Trade Center, Makai Chowk, Dhamtari, Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ---Appellant (s) Versus 1 - Sudamaram Sahu S/o Manrakhanlal Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Bhanpuri, Post Tarsiwa, Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ............Respondent No. 01, (Applicant No. 1) 2 - Smt. Kesharibai Sahu W/o Sudamaram Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Bhanpuri, Post Tarsiwa, Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ............Respondent No. 02, (Applicant No. 2) 3 - Kumari Neha Sahu D/o Sudamaram Sahu Aged About 14 Years Minor Represented Through Her Father, Sudamaram Sahu S/o Manrakhanlal Sahu, R/o Village Bhanpuri, Post Tarsiwa, Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ...........Respondent No. 03, (Applicant No. 3) 4 - Jaiprakash Meshram S/o Nandkumar Meshram R/o Village Bhanpuri, Post Tarsiwa, Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ...........Respondent No. 04, (Respondent No. 1), 5 - Neelmani Sinha S/o Ghanshyam Sinha R/o Village Arjuni, Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ............Respondent No. 05, (Respondent No. 2), --- Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate For Resp. No.1 to 3 : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Resp. No.4 & 5 : Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 25/04/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally. 2. MAC No.925 of 2020 filed by applicants/claimants and MAC No.835 of 2020 filed by non-applicant/Insurance Company are SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY -3- being decided by this common order as both the appeals arise out of same award dated 31.01.2020 passed in Claim Case No.167 of 2018 by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (CG). 3. Facts relevant for disposal of these two appeals are that on 20/09/2018, Lalit Kumar Sahu was going from Dhamtari to Farasgaon in a Bolero pick-up vehicle number- CG 07/BC/6513 loaded with wood logs along with non-applicant No.1. On the way at around 11.30 am near village Chitod turn, non-applicant No.1- Jaiprakash while driving the said pick-up rashly and negligently, lost his control over the vehicle and in the result vehicle overturned and met with an accident. In the accident Lalit Kumar Sahu suffered grievous injuries on his head, both hands and shoulder. He was taken to district hospital Dhamtari from where he was referred to Raipur, Lalit Kumar Sahu died while being taken to Raipur. 4. After death of deceased Lalit Kumar Sahu in the said accident caused by non-applicant No.1 i.e. driver of the offending vehicle by driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, the applicants being parents and sister of the deceased filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1988”) seeking compensation of Rs.16,61,000/- under different heads jointly and severally from the non-applicants. It is stated in the application that at the time of the accident, the deceased was a healthy and abled body 18-year-old youth, was earning Rs. -4- 250/- per day by working as an agricultural labourer and maintaining the applicants. 5. Non-applicants No. 1 & 2 in their written statement have denied all the pleadings made in the claim application and it has been specifically stated that non-applicant No.1 is a skilled driver. On the date of alleged incident, non-applicant No.1 was driving the vehicle at a slow speed. Due to mechanical fault, rear wheel axle of pick-up vehicle broke, and non-applicant No.1 slowly brought the vehicle to the side of the road, but due to panic, Lalit Kumar Sahu jumped down from the vehicle, due to which he got injured which caused his death and there was no negligence on the part of non-applicant No.1. It is also stated that on the date of accident non-applicant No.1 had a valid and effective driving license and the vehicle was insured with non- applicant No. 3/ insurance company, hence, non-applicant No. 3/insurance company is liable to pay amount of compensation, if any. 6. Non-applicant No.3/insurance company in its written statement has also specifically denied all the pleadings made in the claim application and stated that the accident was reported with a delay of 25 days, which clearly shows that the accident did not occur with the vehicle insured by non-applicant No.3, but with some other vehicle. It is also stated that on the date of the accident, deceased and other persons were travelling in the vehicle illegally. It is also stated that at the time of accident, non- applicant No.1 had a learner's license to drive LMV and the said -5- vehicle was being used against the terms of the insurance policy at the time of the accident, hence non-applicant No.3/insurance company is not liable for compensation. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non- applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which Lalit Kumar Sahu suffered grievous injury and died. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found proved, held Non-applicant No. 3 insurance company liable to pay the amount of compensation and computed the loss suffered by the claimant under different heads, awarded total compensation of Rs.7,10,400/ -. MAC 925 of 2020 8. Mr. A.L. Singroul, learned counsel for the appellants/applicants appearing in this appeal submits that appellants/claimants have raised primarily two grounds seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. He contended that date of accident is 20.09.2018, age of the deceased was 17 years as held by Claims Tribunal, however, learned Tribunal overlooking the date of accident and age of deceased has assessed the income of deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month only instead Rs. 7,500/- which in the facts of the case is on lower side. He next contended that learned Tribunal erred in not awarding amount towards loss of consortium to all the claimants but have awarded amount of compensation -6- towards funeral expenses and loss of estate and therefore amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal be suitably enhanced. 9. Mr. Kunal Das, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2 and Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 in this case vehemently oppose the submission of learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and would submit that amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper in the facts of the case which does not call for any interference . MAC No.835 of 2020 10. Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshumukh, learned counsel appearing for appellant/Insurance company would submit that this appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the liability fastened upon insurance company of paying amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. He contended that learned Tribunal failed to take note of the fact that there was breach of conditions of insurance policy, hence, liability to satisfy the award could not be fastened upon it. Non-applicant No.1 Jaiprakash Meshram before learned Tribunal, has produced copy of licence which is a Learner’s Licence and as per condition of insurance policy, the person possessing Learner’s Licence can drive the light goods vehicle also,however, he can only drive empty light goods vehicle and not the vehicle loaded with goods. There is specific condition in -7- this regard in the insurance policy filed before the Tribunal as Ex.D-4. 11. Mr. A.L. Singroul, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3, however, opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and would submit that as per Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1989”), person possessing Learner’s Licence is authorized to drive the vehicle as mentioned in Learner’s Licence subject to compliance of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1989 i.e. driver holding the regular licence should accompany and sit on the side of driver possessing the Learner’s Licence at the time of running of vehicle . 12. Mr. Kunal Das, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 4 & 5 submit that respondent No.4 Jaiprakash was possessing Learner’s Licence to drive light motor vehicle. Category of vehicle which is involved in the accident is light goods vehicle and as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mukund Dewangan vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2017) 14 SCC 663, the person holding the licence of light Motor vehicle is also authorized to drive the light goods vehicle. He next contended that undisputedly along with respondent No.4 Jaiprakash Meshram i.e. driver possessing the Learner’s Licence, Ghanshyam Das Manikupuri, person holding regular driving licence to drive said vehicle was also sitting and therefore there is compliance of provision under Rule 3 of the Rules of 1989. He next contended that accident is not occurred -8- on account of negligence on the part of respondent No.4 but due to mechanical fault occurred in the vehicle as axle of the vehicle broke down which led overturning of vehicle and therefore there is no error in the finding recorded by learned Tribunal that there is no violation of condition of insurance policy. 13. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties in both the appeals and also perused the record of the claim case. 14. So far as appeal filed by Insurance Company i.e. MAC No.835 of 2020 and ground raised therein is concerned, main contention of learned counsel for the appellant/ insurance company is that learned Tribunal erred in taking note of condition of insurance policy Ex.D-4 wherein under “Driver Clause”, it is specifically mentioned that person holding an effective Learner’s Licence can also drive the vehicle when not used for the transport of goods. Said clause of insurance policy is relevant and extracted below for ready reference : “Driver: Any person including insured: Provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. Provided also that the person holding an effective Learner’s Licence may also drive the vehicle when not used for the transport of goods at the time of the accident and that such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.” -9- 15. Perusal of evidence of Ghanshyam Das Manikpuri (NAW-4) and Jaiprakash Meshram (NAW-5) who were stated to be occupants of ill-fatted vehicle when it met with an accident it is appearing that vehicle was being driven by Jaiprakash (respondent No.4 in the appeal filed by insurance company) and Ghanshyam Das Manikpuri who was possessing valid and effective driving licence to drive the pick-up vehicle was sitting next to Jaiprakash who was driving the vehicle. 16. It is not in dispute that vehicle involved in the accident is light goods vehicle. As per the description of vehicle mentioned in Ex.D-3 i.e. details of registration of vehicle, Class of the vehicle is mentioned as LGV - Light Goods Vehicle, Type of Body- Pick up, Gross Vehicle Weight -2960 k.g., Unladen Weight of Vehicle - 1250 kg, which is less than 7500 k.g. Condition of Insurance Policy as extracted above would clearly shows that though the person holding Learner’s Licence is authorized to drive the vehicle, however, he is authorized to drive only the empty goods vehicle as per the driver clause. Any condition of insurance policy is to be made in consonance with the provision of the law. It cannot be in contravention to the provisions under the Act of 1988 or Rules of 1989. 17. Issuance of licence is provided under Section 10 of the Act of 1988 which is reproduced as under for ready reference: “10. Form and contents of licences to drive.— (1) Every learner’s licence and driving licence, -10- except a driving licence issued under section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (2) A learner’s licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely:— (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) [adapted vehicle]; (d) light motor vehicle; [(e) transport vehicle;] (i) road-roller; (j) motor vehicle of a specified description.” 18. Perusal of Section 10 (2) of the Act of 1988 would provide that a Learner’s Licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the classes, description of which is mentioned therein which also includes ‘transport vehicle’. Under transport vehicle, all categories of transport vehicles are included. Chapter- II of the Rules of 1989 deals with licensing of drivers of motor vehicles. Clause (a) of Rule 3 deals with effective Learner’s Licence issued to him in Form -3 to drive the vehicle. Under Rule 3 of the Rules of 1989, there is no restriction on the driver holding a Learner’s Licence to drive the loaded transport vehicle but some conditions are mentioned therein as to when the person holding driving licence can drive the vehicle. 19. Rule 3 of the Rules of 1989 which is relevant in the facts of the -11- case is extracted below for ready reference : “3. General - The provisions of sub-section (1) of section 3 shall not apply to a person while receiving instructions or gaining experience in driving with the object of presenting himself for a test of competence to drive, so long as- (a) such person is the holder of an effective learner’s license issued to him in Form 3 to drive the vehicle; (b) such person is accompanied by an instructor holding an effective driving license to drive the vehicle and such instructor is sitting in such a position to control or stop the vehicle; and (c) there is painted, in the front and the rear of the vehicle or on a plate or card affixed to the front and the rear, the letter “L” in red on a white background as under: L Note.- The painting on the vehicle or on the plate or card shall not be less than 18 centimetres square and the letter “L” shall not be less than 10 centimetres high, 2 centimetres thick and 9 centimetres wide at the bottom: Provided that a person,while receiving instructions or gaining experience in driving a motorcycle (with or without a side-car attached), shall not carry any other person on the motorcycle except for the purpose and in the manner referred to in clause (b).” 20. Perusal of Ex.D-1 would show that it is particulars of licence wherein class of vehicle is mentioned as MCWG i.e. Motorcycle -12- with Gear and LMV i.e. Light Motor Vehicle (non-transport). Admittedly, on the date of accident, vehicle involved is a light goods vehicle. The issue whether the person holding the licence authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle is also authorized to drive light goods vehicle came up for consideration before Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “60.2. A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a roadroller, “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg and holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in Section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg or a motor car or tractor or roadroller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under Section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54 of 1994 and 28-3-2001 in the form.” 21. Recently, in case Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited vs. Rambha Devi & Ors. (2025) 3 SCC 95, Hon’ble Supreme Court has further observed that person holding licence to drive the light motor vehicle is also authorized to drive the goods vehicle coming within the weight of light vehicle. -13- Relevant paragraph in the case of Rambha Devi (supra) is extracted below for ready reference: “181. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under: 181.1. A driver holding a licence for light motor vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7500 kg, is permitted to operate a “transport vehicle” without needing additional authorisation under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the “transport vehicle” class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and transport vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e- rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods. 181.2. The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasises the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a “transport vehicle”, does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act. 181.3. The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and the MV Rules generally for driving “transport vehicles” would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7500 kg i.e. “medium goods vehicle”, “medium passenger vehicle”, “heavy goods vehicle” and “heavy -14- passenger vehicle”. 181.4. The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) [Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2017) 14 SCC 663] is upheld but for reasons as explained by us in this judgment. In the absence of any obtrusive omission, the decision is not per incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV Act and the MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment. 182. The reference is answered in the above terms. The Registry is directed to list the matters before the appropriate Bench after obtaining directions from Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India.” 22. Neither the provision of Section 10 of the Act of 1988 nor Rule 3 of the Rules of 1989 imposes a bar that the person holding Learner’s Licence is restrained from driving the loaded goods vehicle. 23. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 297 has dealt with the issue of Learner’s Licence and it is held that when a vehicle is being driven by a learner subject to the conditions mentioned in the licence, he would not be a person who is not “duly licensed” resulting in conferring a right on the insurer to avoid the claim of the third party. Relevant paragraph in the case of Swaran Singh (supra) is extracted below for ready reference : “93. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for -15- grant of learner's licence. [See Section 4(3), Section 7(2), Section 10(3) and Section 14.] A learner's licence is, thus, also a licence within the meaning of the provisions of the said Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that when a vehicle is being driven by a learner subject to the conditions mentioned in the licence, he would not be a person who is not “duly licensed” resulting in conferring a right on the insurer to avoid the claim of the third party. It cannot be said that a person holding a learner's licence is not entitled to drive the vehicle. Even if there exists a condition in the contract of insurance that the vehicle cannot be driven by a person holding a learner's licence, the same would run counter to the provisions of Section 149(2) of the said Act. x x x x x x 110. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions is as follows: x x x x x x (viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learner's licence, the insurance companies would be liable to satisfy the decree.” 24. Perusal of the clause mentioned in the insurance policy would show that it bears exclusion clause wherein it is mentioned that Driver holding Learner’s Licence is not permissible to drive the light goods vehicle, loaded with goods, whereas provision under Section 10 (2) of the Act of 1988 or Rules 3 of Rules of 1989 does not create any bar of such nature as mentioned in -16- insurance policy. Conditions of insurance policy should be in consonance with the provision under the Act of 1988 and Rules framed thereunder i.e. Rules of 1989. Conditions of the Insurance Policy cannot go contrary to provision of law. 25. Insurance Company could escape from liability under the insurance policy to satisfy the award only when there is fundamental breach of conditions of insurance policy in conformity with the provision of law i.e. Act of 1988 or Rules of 1989. 26. Section 10 (2) of the Act of 1988 provides that a person holding Learner’s Licence can also drive categories of vehicle as mentioned therein. Rule 3 of the Rules of 1989 prescribes that person holding Learner’s Licence can drive the vehicle for which licence is issued subject to another person sitting on the side holding regular license to drive said category of vehicle. 27. In the case at hand, as per evidence available on record, driver who was driving ill-fated vehicle on the date of accident was possessing Learner’s Licence to drive light motor vehicle. As per evidence available on record by the side of driver of vehicle one another person holding effective regular licence to drive the light motor vehicle was sitting. Hence there is compliance of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1989 . 28. In case of National Insurance Co. Vs. Dundamma (AIR 1992 Kar. 3), Full Bench of High Court of Karnataka while considering the conditions of insurance policy to be consistent with the law or inconsistent with the law, has observed thus: -17- “23………………..Subject otherwise to the terms exception conditions and limitation of this policy.” The contents of the tariff and the conditions incorporated in the policy extracted above clearly indicate that the insurance company covers risk in respect of every goods vehicle with the clear understanding that the risk in respect of passengers in a goods vehicle is not covered under the policy. If the conditions incorporated in the policy are inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, certainly the latter prevails, but if the conditions are in conformity with the provisions of the Act they must prevail. For instance, if in an Insurance Policy issued in respect of a stage carriage or a contract carriage, a condition is incorporated in the policy to the effect that it would not be liable to pay compensation in respect of death or bodily injury to passengers such a condition would be a nullity and the Legislature has also incorporated an express provision to that effect in Section 66 of the Act. But the condition incorporated in the policy in respect of a goods vehicle to the effect that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation in respect of passengers carried in a vehicle other than the driver and the employees covered by Section 95 of the Act, is strictly in conformity with the provisions of the Act and is binding on all concerned.” 29. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the decisions mentioned above, exclusion clause will not apply to the fact of the case as it is contrary to provision of Section 10 (2) of the Act, 1988 and Rule 3 of the Rules of 1989. 30. For the foregoing discussions, I am of the view that on the date of accident though the driver of the vehicle was possessing Learner’s Licence to drive light motor vehicle, however, he fulfilled compliance of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1989 and, therefore, it cannot be said that learned Claims Tribunal in any manner erred in fastening the liability to satisfy the amount of -18- compensation upon Insurance Company. 31. Accordingly, submission of learned counsel for Insurance Company is repelled, MAC No.835 of 2020 filed by appellant/Insurance Company being sans merit is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 32. So far as the ground raised in MAC No.925 of 2020 filed by Claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation is concerned, appellants/claimant have raised two grounds seeking enhancement of compensation. First ground is that Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on lower side i.e. Rs.4,500/- and secondly amount of compensation has not been awarded to all the Claimants under the head ‘loss of consortium’. 33. So far as the first ground raised by learned counsel for the claimants is concerned, admittedly, date of accident is 20.09.2018, age of deceased was 17 years on the date of accident. Learned Tribunal has held occupation of deceased to be of agricultural labourer, but, in absence of documentary proof of income of deceased, has assessed income on notional basis as Rs.4,500/-. In the facts of case and nature of occupation as pleaded and stated by claimant, it cannot be expected from a labourer to maintain documentary record of his income in the form of wage which he received as daily wager. Even if the claimant failed to prove the nature of occupation and income of deceased, learned Tribunal considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age of the deceased, has to assess -19- occupation to be a labourer and to assess the income considering the price index, cost of living, wage structure prevailing within the area the deceased was residing etc. and may also take note of minimum wages fixed by the Commissioner and Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Learned Claims Tribunal has not assigned any reason for assessing the income of deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month. 34. In the aforementioned facts of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month on notional basis only on guess work, hence, said finding is not sustainable and it is accordingly set aside. 35. For assessing the income of the deceased in the facts of case, I am inclined to take help of Notification issued by the Commissioner and Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Chhattisgarh Raipur wherein minimum wages is fixed area/zone-wise. For agricultural labourer, under the Notification issued from 01.10.2017 till 31.03.2018, minimum wages fixed by the authority is Rs.7020/- per month. Therefore, this Court find it appropriate to assess monthly income of the deceased as Rs.7020/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. Addition of 40% towards future prospects, application of multiplier of 18 is correctly applied by learned Claims Tribunal. Learned Tribunal has also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, however, -20- learned Claims Tribunal failed to award compensation under head of ‘loss of consortium’. Principle of awarding compensation towards loss of consortium has been dealt with by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680. The said principle has further been explained in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130. In the case of Nanu Ram (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained that there are three types of consortium i.e. spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium to be awarded to legal representatives i.e. wife, children and parents of the deceased at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each. The Claimant are parents and sister of the deceased. As per the law down in the case of Nanu Ram (supra), each of appellant/claimants No. 1 & 2 being parents will be entitled for amount of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of filial consortium. It is ordered accordingly. 36. Further, in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that the amount under other conventional heads should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of every three years. In the case at hand, accident is of year 2018. Hence, the appellants/claimants are entitled for 10% enhancement on the amount under other conventional heads. So, by enhancing the amount under other conventional heads at the rate of 10% the appellants are now entitled for a sum of -21- Rs.16,500 (15000 + 10 %) towards loss of estate, Rs.16,500/- (15000 + 10%) towards funeral expenses and Rs. 44,000/- (40000 + 10%) to each of appellants No. 1 & 2 towards loss of filial consortium. 37. For the foregoing discussions and the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court as above, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. (A) Loss of Income/dependency 7020 x 12 = 84,240 (B) Addition towards future prospects @ 40% (84240 x 40% =33696) 84240 + 33696 = 1,17,936 (C) Deduction of 50% towards personal and living expenses (1,17,936 x 50% =58,968) 117936- 58968 = 58,968 (D) Multiplier of 18 58968 x 18 = 10,61,424 Rs. 10,61,424 4. Funeral Expenses (15000 x 10%=1500) 15000 + 1500=16,500 : (+) Rs. 16,500 5. Loss of Estate (15000 x 10%=1500) 15000 + 1500=16,500 : (+) Rs. 16,500 8. Loss of Filial Consortium of Rs.44,000/- to each of claimants No.1 & 2 being parents of deceased (40,000 x 10 % = 4400, 40000 + 4400 =44,000) : (+) Rs. 88,000 Total compensation : Rs. 11,82,424 -22- 38. Now the appellants/claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs. 11,82,424/- instead of Rs.7,10,400/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 39. Aforementioned total amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Other conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 40. In the result, MAC No.925 of 2020 filed by appellants/claimants is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein above. MAC No.835 of 2020 is dismissed. Sd/--/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen