-1- 2025:CGHC:43074 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 318 of 2021 1 - Smt. Savita Bai W/o Late Omprakash Gangber, Aged About 40 Years 2 - Ku. Anjali Gangber D/o Late Omprakash Gangber, Aged About 22 Years 3 - Amit Kumar S/o Late Omprakash Gangber, Aged About 17 Years 4 - Jayprakash S/o Late Omprakash Gangber, Aged About 15 Years 5 - Smt. Sumitra Bai W/o Late Milap Ram Gangber, Aged About 60 Years Appellants No. 3 & 4 are minor Represented Through Mother And Legal Guardian Smt. Savita Bai, All R/o Village - Siltara, Police Station - Korar, District - Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus Vedprakash Sahu S/o Shri Janak Ram Sahu, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village - Potgaon, Police Station - Korar, District - North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Krishnakant Prajapati, Advocate on behalf of Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate For Respondent : None appears though served. ___________________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.10.07 11:25:51 +0530 -2- 25/08/2025 1. This is claimants’ appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Uttar Bastar Kanker (CG) vide award dated 08.11.2019 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.64 of 2019. 2. As this appeal is filed by claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, date and time of accident, involvement of two vehicles in the accident by head-no collision, motor accidental death of Omprakash Gangber, the other driver of one of vehicle are not in dispute, this Court is not discussing the facts as pleaded in the claim application, written statements and discussed by the Claims Tribunal in its award in detail and only considering the submissions made by learned counsel for appellants on enhancement of amount of compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that though learned Claims Tribunal rightly assessed monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.10,000/- per month considering the pleadings made in claim application, however, while computing amount of compensation erred in not adding 25% to the assessed income towards future prospects as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680. Amount of compensation awarded under other conventional heads is also on lower side. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs.40,000/- under the head of loss of consortium. He -3- lastly submits that learned Claims Tribunal also erred in holding the deceased to be contributory negligent to the extent of 50% overlooking the pleadings and evidence available on record. He prays for enhancement of amount of compensation accordingly. 4. There is no representation on behalf of respondent even though served. 5. I have heard learned counsel for appellants/claimant and also perused record of claim case. 6. So far as submission of learned counsel for appellants/claimants with regard to not awarding future prospect is concerned, deceased on the date of accident was aged about 45 years. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has held that where deceased was aged between 40 to 50 years and not in permanent employment, there should be addition of 25% to the assessed income of deceased towards future prospects. Hence, looking to the age of deceased and his employment, it is ordered that there shall be addition of 25% to the assessed income of deceased towards future prospects. 7. So far as second submission made by learned counsel for the appellants/claimants that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding less amount of compensation under other conventional heads is concerned, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) specified other heads as ‘loss of consortium’, ‘funeral expenses’, ‘loss of estate’ of Rs.40,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) -4- 18 SCC 130 has specified types of consortium and it was held that husband/wife of deceased is entitled to get Rs.40,000/- towards loss of spousal consortium, children are entitled to get Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium and mother/father of deceased is entitled to get Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium. Hence, in the case at hand, appellant/claimant No. 1/wife of the deceased will be entitled for loss of ‘spousal consortium’ of Rs.40,000/-; appellants/claimants No. 2 to 4 being children of deceased will be entitled for loss of ‘parental consortium’ of Rs.40,000/- each and appellant/claimant No. 5 being mother of deceased will be entitled for loss of ‘filial consortium’ of Rs.40,000/- . It is ordered accordingly. 8. In the case Pranay Sethi (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that loss of compensation awarded under other conventional heads like ‘loss of estate’, ‘funeral expenses’, and ‘loss of consortium’ are to be increased by 10% in every three years and, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, amount of compensation under other conventional heads is to be enhanced by 10% . It is ordered accordingly. 9. For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. Loss of Income/dependency (A) Annual Income 10000 x 12 =1,20,000 Rs. 15,75,000 -5- (B) Addition towards future prospects @ 25% (1,20,000 x 25% =30,000) 1,20,000+ 30,000 = 1,50,000 (C) Deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses (1,50,000 x 1/4 =37500) 1,50,000- 37500 = 1,12,500 (D) Multiplier of 14 1,12,500 x 14 = 15,75,000 2. Funeral Expenses 15000 x 10 % =1500 15000 + 1500 = 16500 : (+) Rs. 16,500 3. Loss of Estate 15000 x 10 % =1500 15000 + 1500 = 16500 : (+) Rs. 16,500 4. Loss of spousal consortium to appellant/claimant No.1/wife (40000 + 10% = 44,000) : (+) Rs. 44,000 5. Loss of Parental Consortium of Rs.40,000/- each to appellant/ claimants No. 2 to 4 (children) (40000 + 10% = 44000) ( 44000 x 3 = 1,32,000/-) : (+) Rs. 1,32,000 6. Loss of Filial Consortium of Rs.40,000/- to appellant/ claimant No. 5 (mother) (40000 + 10% = 44,000) : (+) Rs. 44,000 Total compensation : Rs. 18,28,000 10. So far as submission of learned counsel for appellants/claimants that learned Claims Tribunal erred in deducting 50% towards contributory negligence is concerned, admittedly accident was of 13.04.2018 at about 7:00 pm . During that period, at the time of -6- accident, though there was low light, however, object like four-wheeler can be identified from distance. There was head- on collusion between to vehicles. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bijoy Kumar Dugar Vs. Bidya Dhar Dutta and Ors. (2006) 3 SCC 242, while dealing with the issue of contributory negligence on the part of drivers of two vehicles in an accident of head-on collision, held as under: “12. Adverting to the next contention of the claimants, no doubt the High Court has not dealt with the point in issue. However, we have noticed the reasoning and finding of the MACT recorded under Issue No.2. It is the evidence of Rajesh Kumar Gupta-P.W.2 who was travelling in the Maruti car along with the deceased Raj Kumar Dugar on the day of the accident that he also suffered some injuries in the said accident. He stated that while coming from Digboi, the Maruti car being driven by the deceased met with an accident at a place near Kharjan Pol. Before the accident, Raj Kumar Dugar noticed a passenger bus coming from the opposite direction and the movement of the bus was not normal as it was coming in a zigzag manner. The Maruti car being driven by the deceased Raj Kumar Dugar and the offending bus had a head- on collision. MACT has not accepted the evidence of P.W. 2 to prove that the driver of the offending bus was driving the vehicle in abnormal speed. If the bus was being driven by the driver abnormally in a zigzag manner, as P.W. 2 wanted the Court to believe, it was, but natural, as a prudent man, for the deceased to have taken due -7- care and precaution to avoid head-on collision when he had already seen the bus from a long distance coming from the opposite direction from a long distance. It was head- on collision in which both the vehicles were damaged and unfortunately, Raj Kumar Dugar died on the spot. MACT, in our view, has rightly observed that had the knocking been on one side of the car, the negligence or rashness could have been wholly fastened or attributable to the driver of the bus, but when the vehicles had a head-on collision, the drivers of both the vehicles should be held responsible to have contributed equally to the accident. The finding on this issue is a finding of fact and we do not find any cogent and convincing reason to disagree with the well-reasoned order of MACT on this point. The MACT has awarded interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of payment. It is a discretionary relief granted by MACT and, in our view, the discretion exercised by MACT cannot be said to be inadequate and inappropriate.” 12. In view of the aforementioned facts of case, decision as referred to above, I do not find any error in the finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal on contributory negligence on the part of driver of both the vehicles and deducting 50% towards contributory negligence on the part of deceased, driver of one of the vehicle. 13. For the foregoing reason, now the appellants/claimants are awarded total compensation of Rs.9,14,000/- (18,28,000 x 50%) instead of Rs.6,65,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. -8- 14. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% 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. 15. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein above. /- Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen