1 2025:CGHC:14179 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 431 of 2020 1 - Smt. Suman Lahari W/o Late Laxman Lahari Aged About 42 Years R/o Santoshi Para Camp - Ii , Chhawni, Bhilai, Police Station Chhawni, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Manisha Lahari D/o Late Laxman Lahari Aged About 20 Years R/o Santoshi Para Camp Ii , Chhawni, Bhilai, Police Station Chhawni, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Nikita Lahari D/o Late Laxman Lahari Aged About 18 Years R/o Santoshi Para Camp Ii , Chhawni, Bhilai, Police Station Chhawni, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Namrata Lahari D/o Late Laxman Lahari Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Suman Lahari , R/o Santoshi Para Camp Ii , Chhawni, Bhilai, Police Station Chhawni, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chandan Kumar Lahari S/o Late Laxman Lahari Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Suman Lahari , R/o Santoshi Para Camp Ii , Chhawni, Bhilai, Police Station Chhawni, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 6 - Ku. Sharda Lahari D/o Late Laxman Lahari Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Suman Lahari , R/o Santoshi Para Camp Ii , Chhawni, Bhilai, Police Station Chhawni, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 7 - Fagni Bai Lahari W/o Late Pardeshi Ram Lahari Aged About 77 Years R/o Santoshi Para Camp Ii , Chhawni, Bhilai, Police Station Chhawni, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., ... Petitioners Versus SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 1 - Mahesh Kumar Goutam S/o Koduram Goutam Aged About 36 Years R/o Somni, Police Station Somni, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh..(Driver), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - M/s Polybond Insulation Pvt. Ltd. Block No. 56/a, Plot No. 17, Nehru Nagar West Bhilai , Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager , Divisional Office, Branch 192101, 16 R.S.S. Market Power House Bhilai , Tahsil And District Durg (Insurer), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. H.P. Agrawal, Advcoate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 25/03/2025 1. Notice sent to the Respondents No. 1 & 2 is reported to be served. However, there is no representation on their behalf. 2. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2020 which is an application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 opposes the pleading made in the application as also, the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant in I.A. No. 01/2020. 4. On due consideration of the submissions of counsel for the respective parties as also, the pleadings made in the application, delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 5. Appeal is admitted for hearing. 6. As the liability to pay the amount of compensation is fastened upon the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company, service of notice upon the Respondents No. 1 & 2 is dispensed with. 7. With the consent of parties, appeal is heard finally. 3 8. This appeal is filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 07.08.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 451/2018. 9. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 03.05.2018 at about 01:30 P.M., the deceased namely, Laxman Lahari along with his brother-in-law namely, Birendra Gajendra was traveling on his two-wheeler vehicle bearing Registration No. CG 07 LT 5119 towards his house at Santoshipara and when they reached near Country Liquor Shop, Dilbar Bhawan, the offending truck i.e. Metador Mazda bearing Registration No. CG 07 C 3196 which was driven by the Respondent No. 1 dashed the two-wheeler vehicle which caused serious injuries to the deceased Laxman Lahri and he died on the spot and Birendra Gajendra sustained serious injuries, he was taken to hospital. Due to the injuries sustained, Bijendra Gajendra suffered with permanent disability. Subsequent to the accident of the deceased, the incident was reported to the concerned police station and an FIR bearing Crime No. 347/2018 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the Respondent No. 1. At the time of death of the deceased, he was aged about 44 years. 10. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation to the appellants. He submits that the motor accidental death of late Laxman Lahri and the liability to pay the amount of compensation fastened by the learned Claims Tribunal upon the Respondent No. 3/Insurance company is not in dispute. He contended that this appeal is filed seeking enhancement 4 of the amount of compensation on the ground that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in deducting the amount from the monthly/yearly income towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased as 1/4th instead of 1/5th. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon the decision in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121. 11. He also contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation towards the loss of future prospects. He submits that according to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 , as the deceased was only 45 years of age, 25% of the total income is to be added towards future prospects. He also contended that the appellants are also entitled for the loss of consortium which was not sufficiently awarded, instead, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 50,000/- towards the loss of consortium and the loss of estate to the Appellant No. 1 and Rs. 25,000 towards loss of love an affection, Rs. 25,000 towards the funeral expenses. 12. He submits that the amount of compensation on other heads is to be computed based on the decision in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and therefore, appropriate orders may be passed for enhancement of the amount of compensation in favour of the appellants. He further submits that the interest awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is also on lower side and submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case and the date of accident, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 5 13. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 opposes the submission of the counsel for the appellants and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case as also, age of the deceased has awarded just amount of compensation which does not call for any interference. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the appeal. 15. No disputed fact is involved. The ground raised seeking enhancement of compensation by the learned counsel for appellant is based on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases. The age of the appellant as 45 years is also not in dispute because, the learned Claims Tribunal considering the post-mortem report has considered the age of the deceased to be 45 years. The number of claimants is also not in dispute as the claimants who have filed the application seeking amount of compensation are seven in numbers. Deduction towards the personal and living expenses was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) and it is held in categorical terms that, where the claimants are more than six in number, the deduction towards the personal and living expenses to be 1/5th. In the case at hand, there are seven claimants and therefore, the appropriate deduction towards the personal and living expenses would be 1/5th instead of 1/4th. Accordingly, this Court holds that there would be a deduction towards personal and living expenses as 1/5th instead of 1/4th as applied by the learned Claims Tribunal. 16. With respect to the submission made by the learned counsel for appellant that learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding any 6 amount of compensation towards future prospect, this issue is also well-settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered that there should be award of future prospects while computing the amount of compensation and held that where the deceased was in between 40 years and 50 years of age, the claimants would be entitled for addition of 25% of the monthly/yearly income towards loss of future prospects. Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to award 25% of the assessed monthly/yearly income as future prospect. 17. The further submission of the counsel for appellants that loss of consortium is also not properly considered and awarded. This award of loss of consortium is also well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated that the wife is also entitled for the loss of consortium, claimants are entitled for loss of parental consortium and the parents are entitled for filial consortium. The Appellant No.1 is wife, Appellants No. 2 to 6 are children and Appellant No. 7 is mother of the deceased and therefore, they would be entitled for loss of consortium, loss of parental consortium and loss of filial consortium. The learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding the amount of compensation towards the loss of consortium as discussed above. 18. For the foregoing reasons, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs. 8,620/- and since at the time of death, the deceased was 44 years old, therefore, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. 7 Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the income of deceased is required to be enhanced by 25% towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.10,775/- (8,620+2155). Thus annual income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the compensation comes to Rs.1,29,300/- (10,775 x 12). Out of this amount, one-fifth is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and after deducting one-fifth annual loss of income of deceased would come to Rs.1,03,440/- (1,29,300 - 25,860). By applying multiplier of 14, as applied by the Claims Tribunal, to annual income, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.14,48,160/- (1,03,440 x 14). Besides this, Appellant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium and Appellants No. 2 to 6 for a sum of Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium and Appellant No. 7 is entitled for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards filial consortium as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 130. In addition to aforesaid amount, Appellants will also be entitled for Rs. 15,000/- towards loss estate, Rs. 15,000 towards funeral expenses. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.17,58,160/- (14,48,160 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 + 15,000 + 15,000). This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 19. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above. 8 20. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey