1 2025:CGHC:19573 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 806 of 2020 1 - Smt. Gouri Sahu W/o Late Koushal Sahu Aged About 28 Years 2 - Kumari Suhani D/o Late Koushal Sahu Aged About 4 Years 3 - Naman Kumar Sahu S/o Late Koushal Sahu Aged About 2 Years 4 - Vishram Sahu S/o Late Chetan Sahu Aged About 63 Years 5 - Bhagwati Sahu W/o Vishram Sahu Aged About 60 Years No.2 and 3 both are minors, through legal guardian mother Smt. Gouri Sahu, W/. Late Koushal Sahu, All are R/o Aanand Nager Near Railway Fatak Uslapur Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants versus 1 - Kulwant Singh S/o Hanuman Singh Thakur Aged About 30 Years R/o - Jorapara Sarkanda, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Alto Car C.G. No. 28/H/2893) 2 - Surendra Kumar Sahu S/o Charnuram Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Lachhanpur, Thana- Lormi, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Alto Car C.G. No. 28/H/2893) 3 - Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Brranch Office Guru Kripa Tower, Behind Of - I.C.I.C.I. Bank Byapar Vihar Bilaspur, Tahsil And Disrict- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Alto Car C.G. No. 28/H./2893 --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1014 of 2020 1 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Gurukripa Towers, Beside I. C. I. C. Bank, Vyapar Vihar Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Alto Car No. C.G. 28 - H - 2893) ---Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Gouri Sahu Wd/o Late Kaushal Sahu, Aged About 28 Years 2 - Kumari Suhani Sahu D/o Late Kaushal Sahu, Aged About 4 Years 3 - Naman Kumar Sahu S/o Late Kaushal Sahu, Aged About 2 Years SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 4 - Vishram Sahu S/o Late Chetan Sahu, Aged About 63 Years 5 - Bhagwati Sahu W/o Vishram Sahu, Aged About 60 Years No.2 and 3 are Minors, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Gouri Sahu W/o Late Kaushal Sahu, Aged About 28 Years, All are R/o Anand Nagar, Nearby Railway Fatak, Uslapur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Kulwant Singh S/o Hanuman Singh Thakur, Aged About 30 Years R/o Jorapara Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.(Driver Of Alto Car No. C.G. 28 - H -2893) 7 - Surendra Kumar Sahu S/o Charnuram Sahu, Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Lachhanpur, Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Alto Car No. C.G. 28 - H - 2893) --- Respondents For Appellants (in MAC No.806 of 2020) & Respondent No.1 to 5 in MAC No.1014 of 2020) : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Appellants (in MAC No.1014 of 2020) & Respondent No. 3 in MAC No.806 of 2020) : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 30/04/2025 1. Both the appeals are arising out of the same award, hence, they are being heard and decided together by this common order. 2. The appellants/claimants in MAC No. 806 of 2020 have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in its impugned award dated 20.02.2020, passed in Claim Case No. 235/2019. Whereas, the appellant/Insurance Company in MAC No. 1014 of 2020 has filed this appeal challenging the quantum of the said award. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 24.12.2018 Kaushal Sahu was returning to his house at Uslapur, driving his motor 3 cycle bearing No.GJ-15-AG/4033 carefully on his side. As soon as he reached near village Nagchui Kota Lormi Main Road around 10.00 o’clock in the night, the driver/non-applicant No.1 of the Alto Car bearing registration No. C.G.-28/H/2893 coming from opposite direction by driving the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner dashed the Kaushal Sahu and caused accident as a result of which, Kaushal Sahu fell headlong on the road due to which he suffered severe injuries on his head and on various other parts of body. He was immediately taken to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur and looking to his serious condition, he was referred to Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur, from there, he was referred to Mekahara Hospital, Raipur and thereafter he was admitted in DKS Hospital, Raipur, where during the course of treatment he died on 27.12.2018. 4. Claimants/applicants being the legal heirs of deceased, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.94,80,000/- pleading therein that at the time of accident, deceased was 29 years of young man and was employed as Constable under Government of Chhattisgarh in Home Department and was getting annual salary of Rs.4,20,000/-. The claimants were wholly dependent on the deceased, and due to the untimely demise of the deceased, they have been deprived of his income and financial support. Claimants had also sought compensation under all other heads as are available to them like loss of future income, for love and affection and loss of consortium etc. 5. Non-applicant No.1 & 2/driver and owner of offending vehicle submitted reply denying the pleadings made in the claim application. 4 The occurrence of the accident, involvement of alleged offending vehicle was denied, and it was contended that the said vehicle had been falsely implicated in the incident in collusion with the police officials. The applicant No.1 was having valid and effective driving license and the offending vehicle was dully insured with the non- applicant No.3/Insurance Company. 6. Non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company also filed reply denying the allegation made in the claim application. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, the deceased was under the influence of liquor and the accident was occurred due to his self negligence. False and fabricated report was lodged against non-applicant No.1, insured vehicle was not involved in the accident. The applicants in collusion with the non-applicants No.1 and 2 have implicated the car in order to get the compensation. Hence, the claimants are not entitled to get any compensation. 7. Upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, the learned Claims Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non- applicant No.1, due to which deceased suffered grievous injuries and died. Breach of Policy condition was not found to be proved. Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.61,12,416/- along with interest @ 6% per annum, fastened liability upon non-applicant No.3-Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation. 8. Learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company in MAC No.1014 of 2020 would submit that primarily the grounds which has been raised in 5 this appeal is of false involvement of the Alto car which was insured by it. It is contended that FIR of the incident was lodged with delay of about 45 days. It is also contended that though NAW-1, Investigation Officer was examined on behalf of appellant/Insurance Company, however, he has not specifically stated about the delay in registering the FIR. It is further contention of learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company that the amount of compensation is on higher side. 9. Learned counsel for appellants/claimants in MAC No.806 of 2020 would submit that appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. He contended that learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded proper compensation under other conventional head. He contended that proper amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium is not awarded to the appellants No.2 to 5 as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. He also pointed out that learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded the claim towards the medical bills overlooking the fact that deceased died after about 3 days of accident during the course of his treatment at CIMS, Bilaspur, Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur, Mekahara, Hospital at Raipur and DKS Hospital, Raipur. Hence, it is prayed that compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal may be suitably enhanced. 10. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 6 11. So far as the grounds raised by learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company in MAC No.1014 of 2020 that Alto Car has been falsely involved in this case, is concerned, perusal of the record would show that in the claim application, there is specific pleading that Alto Car bearing registration No. C.G. 28-H-2893, driven by non-applicant No.1 therein rashly and negligently caused the accident. The Insurance Company/non-applicant No.3 submitted its separate reply and they have admitted the insurance of Alto Car bearing No.C.G.-28-H-2893, however, no specific pleading is made denying the facts pleaded in the claim application with respect to the involvement of Alto car in the accident, but have taken other defence that the vehicle insured by the appellant/Insurance Company is being driven in breach of policy condition on the date of accident and he suffered injuries due to his own negligence of deceased. 12. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by the parties has held that the accident was result of rash and negligent driving of non-applicant No.1 considering that the plea taken by non-applicant No.1 and 2 that the alto car was not involved in the accident was not found to be proved in absence of examination of the non-applicant No.1 driver in the proceedings before the learned Claims Tribunal. 13. As the plea taken by the driver and owner of false implication of the vehicle was not found to be proved and further the Insurance Company has not taken such grounds, submission of learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in not considering that the offending vehicle Alto car is not 7 involved in the accident, is not acceptable and accordingly it is repelled. 14. So far as the grounds raised by the learned counsel for appellants/claimants in MAC No.806 of 2020 seeking enhancement of amount of compensation is concerned, as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, compensation in case of fatal accident is to be awarded under the head of loss of dependency, loss of future prospects, loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium. The types of consortium has been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram (supra) as the loss of spousal consortium to husband or wife, loss of parental consortium to children and loss of filial consortium to the parents of the deceased. 15. The deceased on the date of accident i.e. 24.12.2018, was aged about 29 years and was in permanent employment under the State Government and was posted as Constable in P.S. Sargaon, District - Mungeli. Learned Claims Tribunal based on the evidence and pay-slip Ex. P-12 to P-14 has assessed monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 28,350/- and after deducting the income tax for the financial year 2018-19 has assessed, the annual income of the deceased as Rs. 3,35,690/-. Claims Tribunal further added 50% of the assessed income of the deceased towards the future prospects in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), upon adding 50% towards future prospects, the total annual income of the deceased would come to Rs. 5,03,535/-. After deducting 1/4th towards 8 personal and living expenses, the annual loss of dependency would come to Rs. 3,77,651/- (Rs. 5,03,535 – 1/4th of 5,03,535) and upon applying multiplier of 16 (for the age group 31 to 35) in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6 121, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs. 60,42,416/- (3,77,651 X 16). Further, learned Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate. 16. Perusal of the impugned award would show that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- as consortium which may be with respect to claimant No.1 i.e. widow of deceased. Claimants No.2 and 3 are children, hence, they are entitled for loss of parental consortium and appellant No.4 and 5 are unfortunate parents of the deceased and are also entitled for the loss of filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. Hence, in the facts of the case and also in light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram (supra), appellants/Claimants No.1 to 5 are entitled for sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium. It is ordered accordingly. 17. So far as the second submission made by learned counsel for claimants/appellants that learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded the amount towards medical expenses is concerned, perusal of the record would show that claimants have not filed any supporting documents with respect to the expenditure incurred towards treatment of the deceased and in absence of the proof of expenses for the treatment, I do not find any error in not awarding any amount of compensation 9 under the head of medical expenses. Further perusal of the record would show that place of accident is at Main Road Nagchui Kota to Lormi, which was earlier in the District Bilaspur now in District Mungeli. According to the pleading made, immediately after the accident, the injured was taken to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur and looking to seriousness of injuries, the injured was referred to Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur. From Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur he was referred to Mekahara, Hospital, Raipur and thereafter he was taken for treatment at DKS Hospital, Raipur. Shifting of the injured whose condition was serious would be by ambulance only and along with the patient, the family members or the attendant also traveled from the place of accident to Bilaspur thereafter to Raipur. Injured died during the course of treatment on 27.12.2018, whereas the accident is dated 24.12.2018. In the facts of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding the amount of compensation towards conveyance and attendant. The claimants are resident of Uslapur tahsil and District Bilaspur and therefore, after the death of injured in the hospital at Raipur his dead body was also brought back to Uslapur, Bilaspur, therefore, in the facts of the case I find it appropriate to award Rs.25,000/- towards conveyance and attendant expenses. It is ordered accordingly. 18. On the basis of above, the compensation calculated by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :- S.N. Head Amount. 1. Loss of income/dependency : Rs.60,42,416.00 (maintained) 10 2. For loss of estate : Rs. 15,000.00 (maintained) 3. For funeral expenses : Rs. 15,000.00 (maintained) 4. For loss of consortium to applicants No.1 to 5 (spousal, parental and filial) Rs.40,000/- each) (40,000 X 5) : Rs. 2,00,000.00 (enhanced) 5. For conveyance and attendant : Rs. 25,000.00 Total Compensation : Rs.62,97,432.00 19. Now the claimants/appellants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.62,97,432.00. Any amount paid to the appellant as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced Amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Other conditions of the award shall remain intact. 20. For the foregoing discussions MAC No.1014 of 2020 filed by the appellant/Insurance Company is devoid of merits, which is liable to be and it is hereby dismissed and the appeal bearing MAC No.806 of 2020 filed by the claimants/appellant seeking enhancement of compensation is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram/Dey/-