1 MAC No. 823 of 2023 2025:CGHC:58859 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 823 of 2023 1.Smt. Sukadi Vetti W/o Late Shri Lambaram Vetti, Aged About 69 Years; 2.Hirmoram Vetti S/o Late Shri Lambaram Vetti, Aged About 42 Years; 3.Panduram Vetti S/o Late Shri Lambaram Vetti, Aged About 37 Years; All are R/o Patelpara, Burugpal, Police Station Kodenar, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1.Sonadhar Kashyap S/o Mosu Kashyap, Aged About 37 Years (Vehicle Driver), R/o Alva Loharpara, Police Station Kodenar District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 2.Ranbir Singh S/o Jagnarayan Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Madiyapara, Lokmanya Tilak Ward No. 37, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh Pincode 494001 (Vehicle Owner). 3.Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Anupama Chowk, Chitrakot Road, Jagdalpur District Bastar, Chhattisgarh 494001. ... Respondents 2 MAC No. 823 of 2023 For Appellants :- Mr. Shikhar Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 :- Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 04.12.2025 1.This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 20.12.2022 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 182/2021 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of 20,93,000/- ₹ as compensation along with interest for the death of Raju Vetti. 2.Mr. Shikhar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. He 3 MAC No. 823 of 2023 would also submit that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded the amount of filial consortium to the brothers of the deceased/appellants No.2 & 3 herein, which is liable to be awarded in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Magma General Insurance Company Limited. v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. 1 Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 3.Ms. Swati Agrawal, learned counsel for the Insurance Company/respondent No.3, would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and support the impugned award. She would submit that the brothers of the deceased appellants No.2 & 3 herein are not the dependent of the deceased as they have their own source of income. She would further submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 1 (2018) 18 SCC 130 4 MAC No. 823 of 2023 4.I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein- above and gone through the records meticulously. 5.At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the decision of the Supreme Court to the facts of the present case passed in the matter of Nanu Ram (supra) in which their Lordships have observed as under:- “21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi2, dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which encompasses “spousal consortium”, “parental consortium”, and “filial consortium”. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse3 21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company, society, 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 3 Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, [(2013) 9 SCC 54] 5 MAC No. 823 of 2023 cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation”4. 21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training”. 21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit. 22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognised that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. 23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or 4 Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979 6 MAC No. 823 of 2023 unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count5. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium. 24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under “loss of consortium” as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial consortium. 6.In the aforesaid judgment the Supreme Court has awarded filial consortium to the sister of the deceased and in the present case the appellants are the brother of the deceased. As such, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Nanu Ram (supra) I deem it appropriate to award the brothers of the deceased / appellants No.2 & 3 herein, an 5 Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram v. Sohi Ram, [2017 (4) RLW 3368 (Raj); Uttarakhand High Court in Smt. Rita Rana & Anr. v. Pradeep Kumar, [2014 (3) UC 1687; Karnataka High Court in Lakshman & Ors. v. Susheela Chand Choudhary & Ors., [(1996) 3 Kant LJ 570 (DB)] 7 MAC No. 823 of 2023 amount of ₹40,000/- each for loss of filial consortium, meaning thereby 80,000/- in total. ₹ Accordingly, appellants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of 80,000/- ₹ . The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 7.Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit