1 2025:CGHC:57365 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1622 of 2018 1 - Manju Basore W/o Late Jitendra Basore Aged About 27 Years 2 - Palak Basore (Minor) S/o Jitendra Basore Aged About 5 Years 3 - Jayanti Basore W/o Balram Basore Aged About 53 Years All are R/o Ward No.-13, Kundrapara, Lormi, P.S. Lormi, Disrict- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh......(Claimants) ... Appellants/Claimants versus 1 - Sunil Kumar Dhivar (Dhimar) S/o Late Baliram Dhivar Aged About 23 Years R/o Village- Ramhepur, Ward No.15, Lormi, Tehsil And P.S. Lormi, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh......(Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Bearing Pickup No. C.G. 10 Y-8676) 2 - Bhagwat Gandharva S/o Shivprasad Gandharva R/o House No.-90, Ward No. 14, Nursery Road Lormi, Tahsil And P.S. Lormi, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh....(Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Bearing Pickup No. C.G.10 Y-8676) 3 - Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Galaxy Heights, 1st Floor, Beside Of Icici Bank, Vyapar Vihar Road, In Front Of Sanjay Apartment, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh......(Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Bearing Pickup No. C.G. 10y-8676).......(Non-Applicants) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants :- Ms. Manisha Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 :- None, though served. For Respondent No. 3:- Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 25.11.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants against the award dated 01.09.2018 passed by the learned 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, C.G., in Claim Case No. 535/2017, whereby a total compensation of Rs. 10,22,000/- was awarded to the claimants from the date of application till realization, fastening the liability upon non-applicants No. 1 and 2. 2. As per averments made in the claim petition, on 30.01.2017, deceased- Jitendra Basor, aged about 28 years, earning Rs.10-12,000/- per month by working as Helper, died in the motor vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of Pick-up bearing registration No.CG10-Y-8676 (hereinafter called as ‘offending vehicle’) by its driver (non-applicant No.1). At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant No.2 and insured with non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company. 3. On claim petition being filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal considering the evidence led by 3 both the parties passed an award as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 4. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the claimants/appellants is that the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium is on the lower side and deserves to be suitably enhanced. Reliance has been placed upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 & National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company supports the impugned award. 6. None appears for the respondents No. 1 & 2, though served. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. So far as the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of consortium is concerned, in the present case, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, which, in the considered view of this Court, is on the lower side. The scope of “consortium” has subsequently been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra). Consortium can be of three types:- (i) Parental consortium (payable to children on the death of a parent), (ii) Spousal consortium (payable to the surviving spouse on the death of a partner), and (iii) Filial consortium (payable to parents on the death of 4 a child). In view of the above legal position, the claimants are entitled to get Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium. Further, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Others, AIR 2020 SC 3076, a 10% enhancement every three years is required to be applied to the amounts awarded under the heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to Rs.1,44,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.18,000/- towards loss of estate, and Rs.18,000/- towards funeral expenses (after applying the 10% enhancement every three years). 9. On the basis of above recalculation, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency as assessed by the Tribunal Rs. 9,52,000/- 02 Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000 X 3+10%). Rs.1,44,000/- (Rs.48,000/- x 3) 03 Towards loss of estate along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- 04 Towards Funeral Expenses along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 18,000/- Total Rs. 11,32,000/- 10. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs.11,32,000/-. After deducting Rs.10,22,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal, the 5 claimants are entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.1,10,000/-, with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha