1 2025:CGHC:61933 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1396 of 2017 1 - Ku. Laxmi D/o Komal Singh Chouhan, Aged About 19 Years R/o Village and Post Mohgaon, Police Station Nevra, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Kishan Singh S/o Komal Singh, Aged About 15 Years Minor Represented Through Elder Sister Ku. Laxmi Chouhan, R/o Village And Post Mohgaon, Police Station Nevra, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Taan Singh S/o Komal Singh Chouhan, Aged About 13 Years Minor Represented Through Elder Sister Ku. Laxmi Chouhan, R/o Village And Post Mohgaon, Police Station Nevra, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - (Deleted) Mehatrin Bai (Died) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 19.12.2025 5 - (Deleted) Ku. Saraswati Chouhan (Died) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 19.12.2025 --- Appellants Versus 1 - Shivbalak Prasad S/o Munnilal Sahu, C/o Jagdish Prasad Singhaniya, Swastik Mineral Gandhi Chowk, Nevra, Post And Police Station Nevra, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - M/s Swastik Mineral, Through Proprietor- Jagdish Prasad Singhaniya M/s Swastik Mineral Gandhi Chowk, Nevra, Post And Police Station Nevra, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.12.19 18:30:42 +0530 2 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Division No.1, The Oriental Insurance Company, Jail Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Komal Singh S/o Kashiram Chouhan, R/o Telibandha (Post Office Gali), Police Station Telibandha, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents MAC No. 1402 of 2017 1 - Ku. Laxmi D/o Komal Singh Chouhan Aged About 19 Years Village- Mohgaon, Post-Champa, Police Station Nevra, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Kishan Singh S/o Komal Singh Aged About 15 Years Minor, Represented Through Elder Sister Ku. Laxmi Chouhan , Village Mohgaon, Post-Champa, Police Station Nevra , District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Taan Singh S/o Komal Singh Chouhan, Aged About 13 Years Minor , Represented Through Elder Sister Ku. Laxmi Chouhan Village Mohgaon, Post-Champa, Police Station Nevra , District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - (Deleted) Mehatrin Bai (Died) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 04- 07-2023. 5 - (Deleted) Ku. Saraswati Chouhan (Died) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 04-07-2023. --- Appellants Versus 1 - Shivbalak Prasad S/o Munnilal Sahu, C/o Jagdish Prasad Singhaniya, Swastik Mineral Gandhi Chowk, Nevra , Post And Police Station Nevra, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - M/s Swastik Mineral, Through Proprietor - Jagdish Prasad Singhaniya M/s Swastik Mineral Gandhi Chowk Nevra, Post And Police Station Nevra, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager Division No 1 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Jail Road Raipur District Raiupr Chhattisgarh 4 - Komal Singh S/o Kashiram Chouhan R/o Telibandha (Post Office Gali) Police Station Telibandha, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Akash Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 19.12.2025 1. Since both the appeals filed by the appellants arise out of same accident, they have been clubbed together, heard together and decided by this common judgment. 2. Challenge in these appeals is to the award dated 29.06.2017 passed by the learned First Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case Nos.445/2016 and 446/2016 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimants. 4 3. Both the appeals being MAC No.1396/2017 and MAC No.1402/2017 have been filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of amount of compensation. 4. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that on 08.06.2016 at about 09:00 a.m., in front of Village Dekna Society, non-applicant No. 1, while driving truck bearing registration No. CG-10-HW- 2064 (for short, ‘offending vehicle’) in a rash and negligent manner, struck motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-04-LC- 9539. As a result of the said accident, Rakesh Singh Chauhan and Kamlesh Chauhan, who were riding the motorcycle, sustained grievous injuries and succumbed thereto. 5. Pursuant to the accident, a report was lodged at Police Station Simga, District Balodabazar, against non-applicant No. 1 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against non-applicant No. 1 before the competent criminal Court. 6. The claimants being legal heirs of deceased Kamlesh Chauhan and Rakesh Singh Chauhan filed claim petitions and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.16,90,000/- in Claim Case No.445/2016 and Rs.90,90,000/- in Claim Case No.446/2016. 7. Non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 filed a joint reply denying the material allegations and contending that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased Rakesh Singh Chauhan, who was allegedly driving the motorcycle at a high 5 speed and lost control, resulting in a collision with the truck. It is further pleaded that non-applicant No. 1 possessed a valid driving licence, there was no violation of the insurance policy, and that the claimants have filed false and fabricated documents to claim an excessive amount of compensation, and therefore, the claim petition deserves dismissal. 8. Non-applicant No. 3, the insurer, while admitting certain basic facts, denied the material allegations of the claimants and raised several defences, including that applicant Nos. 4 and 5 are not legal heirs of the deceased; that non-applicant No. 1 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive a goods vehicle; that the vehicle was not having a valid permit or fitness certificate; and that in terms of Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, liability would not arise if the premium had not been duly paid. It was also contended that the deceased Rakesh Singh Chauhan did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. 9. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.7,05,000/- in Claim Case No.445/2016 and Rs.15,09,000/- in Claim Case No.446/2016, as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization and fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon non-applicants therein. 6 10. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned award dated 29.06.2017 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced, as the compensation awarded does not reflect a just and reasonable assessment of the loss suffered by the appellants. It is further submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in not properly applying the principle of future prospects while computing the income of the deceased, thereby resulting in an inadequate determination of the multiplicand. It is contended that the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th towards personal and living expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3rd, inasmuch as there are five dependents upon the deceased, and the deduction made is contrary to the settled principles of law. It is also submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a very meagre amount under the conventional heads, such as loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses, which deserves to be suitably enhanced in accordance with the prevailing legal standards. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, whereas interest at the rate of 12% per annum ought to have been granted, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the prolonged deprivation of just compensation. 11. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the impugned award dated 29.06.2017 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is 7 just, proper and based on a correct appreciation of the evidence on record, and therefore, does not warrant any interference or enhancement by this Court. It is submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased and has applied the settled principles of law while determining the compensation. The deduction made towards personal and living expenses is reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further submitted that the amount awarded under the conventional heads as well as the rate of interest granted are fair and commensurate with the prevailing legal position. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants deserves to be dismissed. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has passed a well-reasoned and lawful award after due consideration of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties. It is submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the computation of compensation so as to justify enhancement as sought by the appellants. The principle of future prospects has been applied appropriately, keeping in view the nature of employment and proof of income. The deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses and the compensation awarded under conventional head are all in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the appellants have failed to make out any case for enhancement, and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 13. This Court shall first deal with the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants being MAC No.1396/2017. 8 14. Before the learned Claims Tribunal, claimants have pleaded income of deceased to Rs.10,000/- per month by working as Tailor, but has not produced any evidence with respect to salary or income of deceased. The claimants have failed to prove income as pleaded in their claim application, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of case, income of deceased is to be assessed on notional basis. The date of accident was 08.06.2016 therefore, looking to minimum wages rate prevailing in the Districts and State, it will be proper to assess the income of the deceased as Rs.6,107/- per month. 15. The legal position now stands settled by virtue of the law declared by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transportation Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. It stands affirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 SC 5157. In the instant case, since the accident occurred was in the year 2016, this Court has reckoned the income of deceased as Rs.6,107/- per month, i.e. Rs.73,284/- per annum. Going by the rulings rendered by the Apex Court as cited above, in the case of persons of 40 years of age without fixed income, 25% of the income has to be added for fixing the future prospects (Rs.18,321/-), which comes to Rs.91,605/- per annum. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses (Rs.30,535/-), annual income of deceased comes to Rs.61,070/-. 9 After applying the multiplier of 15, the loss of income of deceased comes to Rs.9,16,050/-. 16. The scope of 'consortium' has been subsequently explained by the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130. It can be of three types; Parental consortium (payable to children because of the death of parents); Spousal consortium (payable to the surviving spouse because of the death of the partner) and Filial consortium (payable to the parents because of the death of children). This being the position, the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- towards loss of consortium. Further, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is payable towards funeral expenses in view of the law declared in Pranay Sethi (supra). As per the decision rendered in Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellants/claimants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. 17. Further, 10% enhancement in every three years is also required to be given in respect of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Others reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076. 18. On the basis of above recalculation, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- 10 Sl. No. Head Calculation Awarded amount 1. Income of deceased @ Rs.6,107/- per month Rs.73,284/- per annum 2. 25% of (1) above to be added as future prospects 73,284 + 18,321 = Rs.91,605/- 3. 1/3rd of (2) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased 91,605 / 3 = 30535 = Rs.61,070/- 4. Compensation after multiplier of 15 applied 61,070 x 15 Rs.9,16,050/- 5. Towards loss of estate 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.18,000/- 6. Towards loss of consortium to all the three claimants @ Rs. 40,000/- 40,000 + 8,000 = 48,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.1,44,000/- 7. Funeral Expenses 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.18,000/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs.10,96,050/- 19. In the said circumstance, the total compensation comes to Rs.10,96,050/-. After deducting Rs.7,05,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.3,91,050/-. 20. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants being MAC No.1396/2017 is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated herein-above. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs.3,91,050/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest 11 @ 7.5% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The other conditions imposed by the learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. 21. Now, this Court shall deal with the appeal filed by the appellants being MAC No.1402/2017. 22. The learned Claims Tribunal, while deciding the claim case, has held that the burden of proving Issue No. 1 lay upon the claimants, which was duly discharged by examining Laxmi Chauhan (AW-1) and Tekeshwar Prasad Vaishnav (AW-2), along with production of certified copies of the criminal case documents. Relying upon the uncontroverted testimony of the eyewitness and the criminal case records, the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No. 1, and accordingly decided Issue No. 1 in the affirmative. 23. While deciding Issue No. 2, the Claims Tribunal held that the insurance company failed to prove any breach of policy conditions and therefore decided the issue against it. On Issue No. 3, it was held that non-applicant No. 1 being the driver, non-applicant No. 2 the owner and non-applicant No. 3 the insurer, were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 24. For determination of compensation, the Tribunal assessed the age of the deceased Rakesh Singh Chauhan as 25 years, fixed his income while working as Cameraman in ETV Penorama 12 Television Private Limited at Rs.1,56,000/- per annum, deducted 50% (½) towards personal expenses, applied the multiplier of 18 and assessed loss of dependency at Rs.14,04,000/-. Adding amounts under conventional heads, the total compensation was determined at Rs15,09,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim application till realization, payable by the insurance company. 25. In conclusion, this Court, after carefully considering the pleadings, evidence and submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, is of the considered view that the learned Claims Tribunal has meticulously appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and has applied the settled principles governing determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The findings recorded by the Tribunal on the issues of negligence, liability and quantum are well-reasoned and based on sound legal principles. 26. No perversity, illegality or material irregularity is found in the impugned award dated 29.06.2017 so as to warrant interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. The compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and does not call for any enhancement. 27. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants/claimants as MAC No.1402/2017 being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed, and the 13 impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is affirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. 28. Since, it is an admitted fact that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company, hence, the Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation to the claimants as modified by this Court in MAC No.1396/2017 within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. 29. Since none has appeared on behalf of the claimants, in spite of due notice, it is directed that the enhancement of compensation be intimated to the claimants at their given address through the concerned District Legal Services Authority, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (‘DLSA’). The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the claimants as well as to the concerned DLSA, Raipur, Chhattisgarh with a further direction to ensure that the claimants may receive the enhanced compensation upon filing suitable proof before the concerned learned Claims Tribunal. 30. Let the record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this judgment for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh