1 2025:CGHC:56053 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1892 of 2023 1 - Shyamlal S/o Dalpratap Aged About 42 Years R/o Village- Kirwahi, Police Station- Odgi,, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Samdasiya W/o Shyamlal Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Kirwahi, Police Station- Odgi,, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants versus 1 - Branch Manager S.B.I. General Insurance Company Limited, 09th Floor, A Andatra B. Wing Ful Croom Building, Sarah Road, Andheri (East)- Mumbai- 400009 (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Cg- 16- Cg- 6706), District : Mumbai, Maharashtra 2 - Chandrika Prasad Rajwade S/o Gambhir Sai Rajwade Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Urgai, Police Station- Sonhat, (Driver Of Offending Vehicle- Cg- 16-Cg- 6706), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Manmohan Patel S/o Late Kamla Ram Patel Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Telimuda, Police Station- Sonhat, (Owner Of Offending Vehicle- Cg- 16-Cg- 6706), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with MAC No. 57 of 2024 Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 Branch Manager Sbi General Insurance Co. Ltd., 9th Floor, A And B Wing, Fulcrum Building, Sahar Road, Andheri East, Mumbai (M.H.) 400099,.... (Insurer) --- Appellant Versus 1 - Shyamlal S/o Dalpratap Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 14, R/o Village - Kirwahi, P.S. Odagi, District Surajpur (C.G.),...(Claimants No. 1) 2 - Samdasiya W/o Shyamlal Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Kirwahi, P.S. Odagi, District Surajpur (C.G.),...(Claimants No. 2) 3 - Chandrika Prasad Rajwade S/o Gambhir Saay Rajwade Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Urgai, P.S. Sonhat, District Koriya (C.G.),...(Driver) 4 - Manmohan Patel S/o Lt. Kamla Ram Patel Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Urgai, P.S. Sonhat, District Koriya (C.G.),...(Owner) --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate (MAC/1892/2023) Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate (MAC/57/2024) For Respondent No.1 For Respondents No. 1 & 2 (Claimants) : : Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate (MAC/1892/2023) Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 18/11/2025 1. These two appeals have been preferred against award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur in Claim Case No. 3 20/2023 dated 04.09.2023, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.3.48 lakh with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on account of death of Jaan Singh, aged about 2 years. 2. The claimants/appellants have filed MAC No.1892/2023 for enhancement of compensation, whereas MAC No.57 of 2024 has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the liability as well as quantum part of the award. 3. Facts of the present case are that on 06.07.2022 at about 9 am, the deceased Jaan Singh and his parents were waiting for conveyance at Atal Chowk at that point of time, the driver of the offending vehicle 407 bearing registration No. CG-16CG-6706 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed an electric pole, resultantly, that electric pole fell down and the deceased sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to hospital where he was declared dead. The claimants/appellants, who are parents of the deceased filed claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming therein compensation to the tune of 25 ₹ lakh. 4. Insurance company filed reply and took a plea that the driver of the offending vehicle, at the time of accident, did not possess valid and effective driving license and the offending vehicle was being driven in absence of mandatory documents. The learned Tribunal framed issues and parties led evidence, thereafter, award was passed. 5. Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit that the learned Tribunal has treated the deceased as non earning member and assessed annual notional income Rs.30,000/- per month. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.16,500 – 16,500/- for funeral expenses & loss of estate, respectively, but failed to grant compensation on the head of loss of consortium. He has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hitesh Nagjibhai 4 Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.10278 of 2025) & Thangavel and ors. v. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1649). 6. On the other hand, Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that the claim case was not maintainable as it was preferred after expiry of six months from the date of accident. He would submit that according to the provisions of Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, the claimants failed to move application for grant of compensation within a period of six months from the date of accident. He would contend that the issue involved in the present case is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He would contend that the specific plea was taken that the offending vehicle was being plied in absence of valid permit and fitness certificate. He would submit that an interim order was passed in the matter of ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. AYITI NAVANEETHA & ORS. (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 8412-8413/2023, whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue involved in the present case, observed that during the pendency of these petitions, the learned Tribunal or the High Court shall not dismiss the claim petitions on the ground of such petitions as barred by limitation as prescribed under sub-section (3) or Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He would submit that the appeal preferred by the claimants deserves to be dismissed and appeal preferred by the Insurance Company may be allowed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. With regard to the valid fitness certificate & permit, though plea was taken in the reply by the insurance company, but insurance company could not produce documentary or oral evidence to establish this fact, therefore, the contention made by Mr. Kesharwani cannot be accepted. 5 9. In the present case, the date of accident was 06.07.2022, whereas the claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed on 17.1.2023 and thus there was delay of about 15 days. 10.The claimants/parents lost their child in the aforesaid accident, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that no claim petition or appeal shall be dismissed by the learned Tribunal or High Courts applying the provisions of Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 11.Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is hereby dismissed. 12. In the case of Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a minor child who suffers death or permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident cannot be treated as a non-earning individual for the purpose of assessing compensation. It was further held that there is no standard or fixed amount of compensation in such cases, and the loss of income should be computed on the basis of the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman, as notified in the State in which the child resided. 13. In the case of Thangavel (supra), which was a death case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the monthly income of deceased Rs.5,000/- without any deduction for personal expenses and applied multiplier of 15 looking to the age of mother of the deceased. Applying same proposition of law, the notional income of the deceased is assessed to the tune of Rs.5,000/- per month and looking to the age of the parents (father 42 & mother 40), multiplier of 14 is applied. The claimants would be entitled for 40,000/- - Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium. In the case of Thangavel (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not awarded compensation towards future prospects to the parents. The compensation for loss of estate and funeral expenses have already been awarded by the learned Tribunal. Thus, the compensation requires recomputation and same is being revisited herein below : 6 Sr.No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs.30,000/- yearly Rs.5,000/-x 12 = 60,000/- 2. Deduction ½ = 15,000/- -- 3. Future Prospect 40 % = 21,000/- -- 4. Multiplier 15 x Rs.21,000/- = Rs.3,15,000/- 14 x 60,000= Rs.8,40,000/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/- Rs.16,500/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs.16,500/- Rs.16,500/- 7. Loss of Consortium (for Claimants No.1 & 2) Not awarded Rs.44,000 x 2 = 88,000 8. Total Rs.3,48,000/- Rs.9,61,000/ 9. Final Compensat ion Rs.9,61,000 - 3,48,000 Rs. 6,13,000/- 14. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 6,13,000/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its realization. The rest of the terms and conditions of award shall remain intact. 7 15. Accordingly, this appeal (MAC/1892/2023) is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim