1 2025:CGHC:58261 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1046 of 2018 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through its Legal Manger, Vanijya Bhawan First Floor, Devendra Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Geeta Tandi W/o Shri Hemant Tandi Aged About 39 Years R/o New Kaling Nagar, Khaal Bada, Gudiyari, Thana Gudiyari, Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rakesh Kumar Lahre, S/o Shri Chandulal Lahre Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Semariya, Thana Vidhan Sabha, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Animesh Pathak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 01.12.2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.01/2018, an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.12.09 18:44:37 +0530 2 2. On due consideration the grounds assigned in the application (I.A. No.01/2018), the same is allowed. Delay of 11 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Since the present appeal pertains to an accident of the year 2016 and the appeal itself has been pending since 2018, this Court deems it appropriate to heard the matter finally. 4. The challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 15.11.2017, passed by the learned 9th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.854/2016, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim application of the claimant and fastened the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the non-applicants therein jointly and severally. 5. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that on 30.09.2016 at about 7:30 p.m., the deceased, Bhanu Bai Besra, while crossing the road on her way home after finishing work at Hotel Simran Heritage, Station Road, Raipur, was hit by a vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04-KS-2204 (for short, ‘offending vehicle’), which was being driven rashly and negligently by non-applicant No.1. As a result of the impact, she sustained grievous injuries and became unconscious. She was immediately taken to Mekahara Hospital, Raipur, where she succumbed to the injuries during the course of treatment at around 2:00 a.m. on 01.10.2016. 3 6. The claimant being legal representative of the deceased filed a claim petition before the learned Claims tribunal pleading therein that on the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 54 years, working as a labourer at Hotel Simran Heritage and earning Rs. 6,000/- per month, on which the claimant was fully dependent. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, the claimant has lost the source of livelihood and has suffered mental and financial distress and claimed compensation of Rs. 16,96,000/-. 7. Non-applicant No.1 has filed his written statement, denied the allegations and contending that the accident did not occur with the said vehicle and that the claim has been exaggerated. However, he stated that if any liability is determined, the offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.2, who would be liable for payment. 8. Non-applicant No.2 - Insurance Company, while denying the claim, pleaded breach of policy conditions and alleged that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence or permit at the time of the accident, and therefore, the insurer is not liable to indemnify. It is further stated that the compensation claimed is highly inflated and the application deserves dismissal. 9. Upon appreciation of the pleadings, as well as oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, learned Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 5,21,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum 4 from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization and fastened the liability upon the non-applicants of the offending vehicle jointly and severally. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has committed a gross error in directing the appellant to pay the compensation as computed. It is urged that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the facts and evidence brought on record by the appellant and has passed the impugned award in complete disregard of material irregularities and legal infirmities. It is further contended that the computation of compensation is wholly erroneous and contrary to the settled principles governing assessment of compensation. It is submitted that the claimant is a married daughter residing with her husband and, therefore, she was not dependent on the deceased in any manner. Consequently, the claim petition itself was not maintainable at her instance, and at the most, she could have been awarded only the statutory amount of Rs. 50,000/- under no- fault liability, being merely a legal representative and not a dependent. 11. Learned counsel further argues that the Tribunal failed to properly ascertain the age of the deceased. The Tribunal incorrectly recorded the age as 50 years, whereas the claimant herself is 39 years old, implying an improbable situation that the claimant was born when the deceased was only 11 years old. As the age 5 determination is patently incorrect, the multiplier applied is also erroneous and unsustainable in law. It is also contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding Rs. 1,05,000/- under the conventional heads, whereas the permissible amount could not have exceeded Rs. 70,000/- in accordance with the settled norms. Additionally, the deduction towards personal expenses has also been incorrectly applied at 1/3rd, whereas considering that the claimant is the sole legal representative, the deduction ought to have been 1/2. As such, the impugned award is perverse, contrary to law, and liable to be set aside. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the claim case carefully. 13. From perusal of the impugned award, it transpires that the learned Tribunal has recorded a finding that the deceased was 54 years of age at the time of the accident, and this fact was not challenged by the non-applicants. However, though the testimony of claimant’s witness No.1, Smt. Geeta Tadi, regarding age remained unshaken in cross-examination, the Tribunal placed reliance on Exhibits P-6 and P-7, the postmortem application and report, which are public documents, wherein the age of the deceased, Bhanu Bai Besra, is recorded as 50 years. In the absence of any other reliable documentary evidence to establish the age as 54 years, the Tribunal held that the deceased was 50 years old at the time of the accident. 6 14. With respect to income, the Tribunal noted that although the claimant asserted that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month as a labourer in Hotel Simran Heritage, and PW-2 Nagendra Prasad Pandey supported this version, no documentary proof or certification from the hotel owner or manager was produced. In the absence of any cogent evidence to establish employment or income, the Tribunal considered it unsafe to accept Rs. 6,000/- as monthly income and accordingly assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- per month. 15. On this basis, the Tribunal computed annual income at Rs. 48,000/-, and after deducting one-third towards personal expenses considering that there was only one dependent, assessed the annual loss of dependency at Rs. 32,000/-. Keeping in view the deceased’s age assessed as 50 years, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 13 and thereby determining the total loss of income at Rs. 4,16,000/-. The Tribunal further awarded Rs. 5,000/- under the conventional heads, and considering that the claimant is the daughter of the deceased and shared a relationship of maternal love, affection and protection, it held that she was entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- under these heads. Relying on the principles laid down in Savita v. Bindar Singh (2004 ACC 244, SC), the Tribunal observed that it is the duty of the Court to award “just compensation”, i.e., compensation that is equitable, fair, reasonable and non-arbitrary. On these considerations, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,05,000/- under the 7 conventional heads. Accordingly, the Tribunal determined that the claimant was entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 5,21,000/- under all heads. 16. It is pertinent to mention that though the claimant has neither appeared before this Court nor filed any cross-objection/cross- appeal seeking enhancement, looking to the benevolent nature of the legislation under the Motor Vehicles Act, and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that even in absence of cross-objection, the Court is empowered to enhance the compensation if the award is found to be inadequate. 17. Recently, in a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surekha W/o Rajendra Nakhate and others v. Santosh S/o Namdeo Jadhav and others passed in Civil Appeal No.476 of 2020 dated 21.1.2020, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “2. Denial of enhanced compensation on ground that claimants failed to file cross appeal, Court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is awarded to affected person or claimants. 3. By now, it is well-settled that in the matter of insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident, the court should not take hyper technical approach and ensure that just compensation is 8 awarded to the affected person or the claimants.” 18. On a careful reading of the aforesaid judgment, it is apparent that even in the absence of a cross-appeal or cross-objection, the Court is empowered to award just and proper compensation, keeping in mind the benevolent object of the legislation under the Motor Vehicles Act. 19. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the view that the Claims Tribunal has committed a gross error in computing the compensation. While the Tribunal relied on postmortem records to fix the age of the deceased at 50 years and assessed notional income at Rs. 4,000/- per month in the absence of documentary proof, it failed to apply the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transportation Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, AIR 2017 SC 5157 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130. As such, this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded requires recalculation. 20. The learned Claims Tribunal has reckoned the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/-, but according to the minimum wages prevailing at that relevant time i.e. in the year 2016, this Court deems it appropriate to reckon the monthly income of deceased as 9 Rs.6,107/- as the date of accident is 30.09.2016, i.e. Rs.73,284/- per annum. 21. The legal position now stands settled by virtue of the law declared by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra), it stands affirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Going by the rulings rendered by the Apex Court as cited above, the future prospects for a deceased person who was about 50 years of age and unskilled (considered self-employed or on a fixed salary) would be an addition of 10% to their established income, as such, in the present case the future prospects comes to Rs.80,612/- per annum. After deducting 1/2 towards personal and living expenses (as there is only one claimant), annual income of deceased comes to Rs.40,306/-. After applying the multiplier of 13, the loss of income of deceased comes to Rs.5,23,978/-. 22. The scope of 'consortium' has been subsequently explained by the Apex Court in Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram (supra). 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 claimant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.40,000/- 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 10 Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimant is also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. 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 in view of the dictum rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur, (2020) 11 SCC 1. 23. On the basis of above recalculation, the claimant is entitled for compensation in the following manner:- Sl. No. Head Calculation Awarded amount 1. Income of deceased @ Rs.6,107/- per month Rs.73,284/- per annum 2. 10% of (1) above to be added as future prospects 73,284 + 7,328 = Rs.80,612/- 3. 1/2 of (2) deducted as personal expenses of the deceased 80,612 / 2 = = Rs.40,306/- 4. Compensation after multiplier of 13 applied 40,306 x 13 Rs.5,23,978/- 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 the claimant @ Rs. 40,000/- 40,000 + 8,000 = 48,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.48,000/- 7. Funeral Expenses 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years Rs.18,000/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs.6,07,978/- 11 24. In the said circumstance, the total compensation comes to Rs.6,07,978/-. After deducting Rs.5,21,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.86,978/-. 25. As such, the claimant shall be entitled to Rs.86,978/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The other conditions imposed by the learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. 26. 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 claimant as modified by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. 27. Accordingly, while upholding the liability of the Insurance Company to satisfy the award, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company stands dismissed, subject to the aforesaid modification with regard to enhancement of compensation. 28. Since none has appeared on behalf of the claimant, in spite of due notice, it is directed that the enhancement of compensation be intimated to the claimant at her 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 claimant as well as to the concerned DLSA, 12 Raipur, Chhattisgarh with a further direction to ensure that the claimant may receive the enhanced compensation upon filing suitable proof before the concerned learned Claims Tribunal. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh