1 2025:CGHC:30351 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1709 of 2019 1 - Smt. Dulari Sonwani W/o - Late Lakhan Lal Sonwani Aged About 41 Years R/o - Village Chhorhadih, Post Farfoud Thana Aarang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Pradeep Kumar Sonwani S/o - Late Lakhan Lal Sonwani Aged About 21 Years R/o - Village Chhorhadih, Post Farfoud Thana Aarang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Anjna Sonwani D/o - Late Lakhan Lal Sonwani Aged About 19 Years R/o - Village Chhorhadih, Post Farfoud Thana Aarang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Mamta Sowani D/o - Late Lakhan Lal Sonwani Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Dulari Sonwani, R/o - Village Chhorhadih, Post Farfoud Thana Aarang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Pramod Kumar Sonwani S/o - Late Lakhan Lal Sonwani Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Dulari Sonwani, R/o - Village Chhorhadih, Post Farfoud Thana Aarang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Vineet Kumar Singh S/o - Dileep Kumar Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o - Shankar Nagar Ward No. 1, Mahasamund Thana Kotwali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ( Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.G. 07/c./2383 ) 2 - Smt. Heera Bai Mishra D/o - Shri Puran Lal Mishra Aged About 55 Years R/o - Ward No. 24 , Santoshi Para Camp No. 2 Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh ( Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.G. 07/c./2383 ) SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 3 - The New Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manger, Address In Front Of Tahsil Office R.D.A. Building G.E. Road Raipur Chhattisgarh ( Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.G. 07/c./2383 ) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Pradeep Singh Rathore, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Azad Siddique, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 03/07/2025 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 19.06.2019 passed by the 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 656/2017. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 01.07.2017, when Lakhan Lal Sonwani (since deceased) had parked his vehicle i.e. Tata Magic bearing registration no. CG 04 TA 2459 on the side of road at Mandir- Hasaud and was waiting for his passengers, at that time, one Truck bearing registration no. CG 07 C 2383 (hereinafter referred to as offending truck), driven by the Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the vehicle of Lakhan Lal Sonwani and caused accident. In the said accident, the Lakhan Lal Sonwani suffered serious injuries, he was taken to hospital for treatment and during treatment, he succumbed to his injuries. Subsequent to the said accident, an FIR was lodged against the Respondent No. 1 bearing Crime No. 188/2017, P.S. Mandir-Hasaud, District - Raipur for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3 3. The claimants/appellants in the claim application filed before the learned Claims Tribunal have pleaded that the deceased Lakhan Lal Sahu was aged about 45 years on the date of accident. He was the driver and owner of the vehicle i.e. Tata Magic bearing registration no. CG 04 TA 2459, earning Rs. 12,000/- per month by doing local transportation. Due to the death of the deceased, the appellants/claimants have lost their bread winner, claimed Rs. 40,50,000/- as compensation along with an interest of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application. 4. Non-Applicants No. 1 & 2, despite service of notice, did not appear before the Tribunal, therefore, they were proceeded ex parte. 5. The Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance company submitted its reply opposing the pleadings made in the claim application and pleaded that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased. Claimants/applicants failed to prove income of the deceased and further pleaded that on the date of accident. Non-Applicant No. 1 was not possessing valid and effective driving license as also, the vehicle was being plied without a valid permit and fitness certificate as such, there was a breach of conditions of the insurance policy. 6. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the facts and evidence brought on record by respective parties held that the death of deceased was a result of motor accidental injuries suffered by him due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by Non-Applicant No. 1. Awarded sum of Rs. 10,15,697/- and directed Non-Applicant No. 3 to first pay the amount of compensation and then to recover the same from the Non-Applicant No. 2. 4 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal while allowing the claim application in part awarded total sum of Rs. 10,15,697/- as compensation recording a finding that there was breach of conditions of the insurance policy as the owner was not having the valid fitness certificate of offending vehicle on the date of accident, exonerated the insurance company from its liability. However, direction of pay and recover was issued against the Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance company. The learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre amount of compensation assessing the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month only, overlooking the fact that the accident was of 01.07.2017 and the pleadings made in the claim application that the deceased on the date of accident was working as driver of commercial vehicle and earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. The learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded proper amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium to the Claimants No. 2 to 5. Hence, the amount of compensation may be suitably enhanced. 8. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respective respondents submit that the compensation awarded by Tribunal in the facts of the case is just and proper as the claimants failed to prove the nature of occupation and income of the deceased. Hence, the impugned award does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case. 10.So far as the first ground raised by the leaned counsel for the appellant that the income assessed by the Claims Tribunal to be on lower side, perusal of the record would show that the claimant 5 have pleaded in the claim application that the deceased on the date of accident, was working as a Driver of Tata Magic (commercial vehicle). Claimant No. 1/Dulari Sonwani (widow of the deceased) submitted photocopy of the driving license of the deceased Lakhanlal Sonwani and the copy of temporary permit of the Tata Magic Vehicle bearing registration no. CG 04 TA 2459 which is a passenger carrying commercial vehicle. The validity of the permit was from 23.05.2017 to 22.09.2017 and whereas, the date of accident is of 01.07.2017 from which it is appearing that on the date of accident, the vehicle was having the valid permit. Copy of the license which is submitted does not bear the photograph of the driver/deceased and it only mentions the name of Lakhan Lal Sonwani and the person to whom the particular of the license was issued is given to one Balram Sahu. 11.The Claims Tribunal while considering the income has recorded that the claimants failed to prove the nature of occupation of the deceased as owner of the Tata Magic Vehicle as also, driver of the said vehicle and earning Rs. 12,000/- and assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month treating him to be ordinary person/labourer which in the opinion of this Court is erroneous. The claimants are poor persons who are the widow and minor children of the deceased. The copy of the license is not being verified and therefore, in the facts of the case where he has been shown to be owner of Tata Magic and the relevant documents and copy of the temporary permit is also filed, showing him to be owner of the vehicle i.e. Tata Magic, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased as Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 6 12.The deceased at the time of accident was aged about 47 years and therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal justified in adding 25% of the assessed income towards the future prospects and further, rightly applied the deduction of 1/4th towards the personal and living expenses and multiplier of 13 which is in consonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 13. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 70,000/- towards the other conventional heads and though awarded the loss of consortium to the Appellant No. 1 (widow of the deceased Kumbhkaran Nishad) of Rs. 40,000/-, however, failed to award loss of consortium to the Appellants No. 2 to 5 who are children of the deceased. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram, reported in (2018) 8 SCC has explained the types of consortium and held that the there are three types of consortium i.e. spousal consortium for wife/husband, parental consortium to children and filial consortium to parents. In the case at hand, the Appellants No. 2 to 5 are children and therefore, are entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of parental and filial consortium respectively (total Rs. 1,60,000/-). 14. For the foregoing discussion, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellants. 15. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.10,000/- and since at the time of death, the deceased was 47 years old, therefore, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of 7 Pranay Sethi (Supra), the income of deceased is required to be enhanced by 25% towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.12,500/- (10000 + 2500). Thus annual income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the compensation comes to Rs.1,50,000/- (12500 x 12). Out of this amount, 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and after deducting 1/4th of the annual income, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,12,500/- (150000 – 37500). By applying multiplier of 13, as applied by the Claims Tribunal, to annual loss of dependency, total loss of dependency would come to Rs.14,62,500/- (1,12,500 x 13). Besides this, Appellants No. 1 to 5 are entitled for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards spousal and parental consortium. Further, they are also entitled for Rs. 15,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000 for loss of estate awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal as held by the Hon’ble Supreme in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). Further, the claimants will also be entitled for Rs. 68,197/- as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal towards medical expenses. 16. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.17,60,697/- (14,62,500 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 15,000 + 15,000 + 68,197). This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 17. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants No. 1 to 5 as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above. 18. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. 8 19. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/-/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey