2025:CGHC:20317 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1127 of 2020 1 - Smt. Rekha Verma, W/o Late Ballu Verma, Aged About 50 Years. 2 - Gokul, S/o Late Ballu Verma, Aged About 28 Years. 3 - Arjun, S/o Late Ballu Verma, Aged About 25 Years. 4 - Nakul, S/o Late Ballu Verma, Aged About 18 Years. All are R/o Village Telaikuda, Post Bemetara, Police Station, Tahsil And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Sanju Kumar Dhruve, S/o Pratap Singh Gond, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Chorbhathi, Police Station Bodla, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh (Driver) 2 - Prakash, S/o Naval Koshle, Transporter, R/o Village Ramhepur, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh (Owner) 3 - Manager, The New India Assurance Company, Divisional Office, 1st Flour, Chouhan State, G.E. Road, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Amit Sahu, Advocate. For Res. No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Aman Kesharwani, Advocate. For Res. No. 3/ Insurance Company : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 02/05 /2025 With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 1. This is claimants' appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dist. Bemetara (C.G.) (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Case No. 88/2019 vide award dated 28.02.2020. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.04.2019 when deceased Yashvant Verma accompanied by Ballu Verma and Karan Verma was going on a motorcycle to attend marriage function, the said motorcycle was ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.06.05 16:14:04 +0530 dashed by Truck bearing registration No.CG-09-JG-7599 being driven by respondent No.1/Sanju Kumar Dhurve in a rash and negligent manner, resulting into, all the three have died on the spot. On account of death of deceased Yashvant Verma, a claim petition was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased seeking total compensation of Rs.57,00,000/- on various heads. 3. Respondents No. 1 & 2, driver and owner, filed their written statement and denied the averments of the claim petition. It was specifically pleaded that the offending vehicle was insured with the insurer/respondent, therefore, the insurer is liable to pay compensation. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company has filed its written statement denying averments made in the claim petition. It was specifically pleaded that at the time of accident, respondent No.1 was not possessing valid and effective driving licence and the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of policy conditions and that there was contributory negligence on the part of both the drivers. 4. Learned Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held that: (i) the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.09-JG/7599 by its driver/respondent No.1; (ii) the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died due to above accident; (iii) there was breach of policy conditions by respondents No. 1 & 2; (iv) awarded total compensation of Rs.6,86,000/- and fastened liability to pay compensation upon respondent No. 2 with a direction to the insurer/respondent to pay the compensation first and then recover the same from respondent No.2/owner. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the Tribunal has fallen in error in not awarding future prospects looking to the age of the deceased as 55 years. He would further submit that no amount under the head 'loss of filial consortium' has been awarded. To substantiate his submission, he would refer to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121], National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] & Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others [(2018) 18 SCC 130]. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal does not deserve to be enhanced, therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned award. He would further submit that that no appeal was filed by either insurance company or driver and owner. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award including the record of the Tribunal with utmost satisfaction. 8. As regards assessment of compensation, the Tribunal, considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/-, which in my considered opinion, is appropriate. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head future loss of income. As such, I propose to recompute the compensation by taking into consideration the amount of Rs.7,000/- as monthly income of the deceased. In this way, the annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.84,000. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3 towards his personal and living expenses, which in my view is proper. Further, the Tribunal, looking to the age of deceased as 55 years on the date of incident, the multiplier 11 used by the Tribunal considering the decision rendered in the matter of Sarla Verma (supra) is just and proper. If 1/3 income of the deceased is deducted from Rs.84,000/-, then loss of dependency of the deceased would come to Rs.56,000/- (Rs.84,000/- – Rs.28,000/-) and loss of annual income of the deceased is assessed at Rs.56,000/-. Looking to the age of the deceased as on the date of incident i.e. 55 years, as held by the Tribunal, 40% from the income, i.e. Rs.22,400/- has to be added towards future prospects, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). After adding 40% towards future prospects, the deceased's annual income would come to Rs.56,000/- and after applying multiplier 11, as used by the Tribunal, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.6,16,000/-. 9. Further, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to wife, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, thus, awarded total sum of Rs.70,000/-, however, no amount under loss of filial consortium has been awarded in favour of appellants No. 2, 3 & 4. In view of dictum rendered in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra), claimant/appellant Nos. 2, 3 & 4 being son of deceased, are entitled to be awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium. Thus, the claimants are entitled to be awarded a total sum of Rs.1,90,000/- under conventional heads, in place of Rs.70,000/-. 10. In view of above discussion, the claimants are now entitled to a sum of Rs.8,06,000/- as total compensation instead of Rs.6,86,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 6,86,000/- and after deducting the same from the amount of Rs. Page 5 of 5 8,06,000/-, the claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of claim application till its realization. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent indicated herein above. Rest of the conditions as made by the Tribunal shall remain intact. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun