1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 694 of 2018 1 - Manager, National Insurance Company Limited Branch Office No.1, Bhutani Complex, G.E.Road, Power House, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No.3), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Rajkumari Wd/o Dhansay Aged About 52 Years Caste Chamar, R/o Village Gadbadi, Police Station And Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Rudra Pratap S/o Late Dhansay Aged About 26 Years Caste Chamar, R/o Village Gadbadi, Police Station And Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Urmila W/o Lalsay Aged About 31 Years D/o Late Dhansay, Caste Chamar, R/o Village Ghutra, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Korea, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Reeta W/o Pramod Aged About 20 Years D/o Late Dhansay, Caste Chamar, R/o Village Indarpur, Tahsil Khadgawa, District Korea, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Dilbag Singh S/o Sonhan Singh Aged About 45 Years Caste Sikh, R/o Village C.C.M. Transport Nagar Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No.1), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 6 - Ramesh Yadav S/o Yuvraj Yadav R/o Pardeshi Chowk, Purana Basti Ram Nagar, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No.2), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant :- Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate For Respondents:- Mrs. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 24.11.2025 1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the award dated 19.09.2017 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Korea (Baikunthpur) C.G., in Claim Case No. 13/2017. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 34,77,976/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realization, while fastening liability on the appellant Insurance Company, jointly and severally. 2. As per the averments made in the claim petition, on 17.07.2015 the deceased, Dhansay, was travelling with his in-law on a scooter from Chirmiri to Bachrapodi. When they reached Village Podidih Chhapar, the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. CG-07-CA-7183, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit their scooter, causing the instant death of both Dhansay and his in-law on the spot. It was further pleaded that the deceased, aged about 54 years at the time of the 3 accident, was employed as an operator in SECL, Chirmiri, and was earning approximately ₹60,000 per month. The claimants therefore sought a total compensation of ₹88,99,900 under various heads. The offending vehicle was being driven by Non-Applicant No. 2, owned by Non-Applicant No. 1, and insured with Non-Applicant No. 3 (the Insurance Company) at the time of the accident. 3. The learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at ₹51,637 per month, i.e., ₹6,19,644 per annum. After applying a 1/3rd deduction towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the monthly contribution to the family was computed at ₹25,818. Considering the age of the deceased as 52 years, and by applying the multiplier of 11, the total loss of dependency was calculated at ₹34,07,976. In addition, a sum of ₹50,000 was awarded to the claimants towards spousal and filial consortium, and ₹20,000 towards funeral expenses, thereby making the total compensation amount ₹34,77,976. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant– Insurance Company. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company submits that the offending vehicle, a truck bearing Registration No. CG-07-CA- 7183, did not possess a valid fitness certificate or the required permit on the date of the accident. The vehicle had fitness only from 10.06.2014 to 09.06.2015, whereas the accident occurred on 07.07.2015. Likewise, the permit was valid from 15.06.2013 to 14.06.2014, and therefore no valid permit existed on the date of the accident. He further submits that during cross-examination, nothing 4 could be elicited to justify the absence of permit or fitness, as the owner and driver of the vehicle remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants in the appeal as well as the cross-appeal submits that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding future prospects and has incorrectly made deductions, which ought to have been restricted to one-third. It is further submitted that the amount awarded towards loss of consortium has been wrongly calculated. She submits that the compensation granted is on the lower side and not in consonance with the evidence available on record. The Tribunal has also erred in not applying future prospects at the rate of 15%, in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence, the appellant prays that the compensation amount be suitably enhanced in the interest of justice. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Before this Court also, despite service of notice upon respondents No. 5 and 6, no one has appeared on their behalf. Hence, the contention raised by the Insurance Company appears to be justified. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering that claim cases are of a benevolent nature, the Insurance Company is directed to pay the amount of compensation and thereafter recover the same from the concerned owner and driver of the offending vehicle. This direction is in view of the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. 5 Ltd. & Ors., (2013) 7 SCC 62, wherein the Court has clearly enunciated that, at the time of the accident, the person who is in actual control and possession of the offending vehicle bears the primary liability to pay compensation. The Apex Court has further clarified that the statutory right of a third party to recover compensation cannot be defeated on the ground of any breach of policy conditions between the insured and the insurer. In such circumstances, the insurer is under a statutory obligation to satisfy the award in favour of the third-party victims, with liberty to recover the amount from the person primarily responsible, namely, the owner and/or driver of the offending vehicle. 8. Further, with regard to cross appeal filed by the claimants, the learned claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 51,637/- per month i.e. Rs. 6,19,644/- per annum. Therefore, as per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 15% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 92,946/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 7,12,590/-. 9. Considering the fact that the deceased was aged about 52 years and the claimants are the wife and children of the deceased so deduction towards personal expenses would be 1/3 (Rs. 2,37,530/-) of the income and after deduction of the same the annual dependency comes to Rs.4,75,060/-. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 6 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 11, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 52,25,660/-. As per Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, the claimants are further entitled for Rs. (40,000/-X4+10%+10%) each (with increase of 10% in every three years) i.e. Rs. 1,92,000/- for consortium. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 54,37,660/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of dependency Rs. 52,25,660/- 02 Towards consortium along with with increase of 10% in every three years (40,000X2+10% +10%). Rs. 1,92,000/- 03 Towards Funeral Expenses along with increase of 10% in every three years. Rs. 20,000/- Total Rs. 54,37,660/- 10. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. Rs. 54,37,660/-. After deducting Rs. 34,77,976/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 19,59,684/-. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company as well as cross-appeal filed by the claimants is hereby partly allowed. The claimants/appellants i.e. wife and children of the deceased shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 19,59,684/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The 7 enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha