-1- 2025:CGHC:13981 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 450 of 2020 1 - Ashok Gupta S/o Yadunandan Sao Aged About 47 Years 2 - Smt. Sheela Gupta W/o Ashok Gupta Aged About 44 Years Both are R/o Village Luragikhurd Post Bhendari Tahsil Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh Present Address- Bhathi Road Trikon Chowk Mikal Gali (In The House Of Shanti Devi) Kedarpur Police Station Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Birsai Rajwade S/o Achambhit Rajwade Occupation Service (S. E. C. L. ) R/o Village Unchdih Chaini Basdeai District Surajpur Chhattisgarh Present Address New Shaktinagar Jarahi Police Station Bhatgaon District Surajpur Chhattisgarh...(Owner) 2 - The Branch Manager Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Gouri Shankar Mandir Road Raigarh Chhattisgarh. Through Branch Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd Branch Office M.M. Silver Plaza 2nd Floor In Front Of Udhyog Bhawan Ring Road No. 1, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Ms. Aakancha Vishwakarma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For Resp. No.1 : Ms. Richa Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate For Resp. No.2 : Mr. P.R. Patankar with Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocates _______________________________________________________ Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.03.27 10:41:45 +0530 -2- S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 24/03/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally. 2. This is the claimant’s appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (CG) vide award dated 23rd October 2019 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.104 of 2018. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur District- Sarguja, pleading therein that on 09/07/2016, deceased Shubham Gupta, after taking permission from the superintendent of the Hostel, was walking some distance from the hostel to get some documents where he met Tarun Kumar Rajwade who forcibly made him sit on the motorcycle of non- applicant No.1 and was taking him from Bhatgaon to Jarhi. At around 06:45 pm Tarun Kumar Rajwade, while driving the motorcycle rashly and negligently, hit a tree on main road and caused an accident. In the said accident, Shubham Gupta suffered serious injuries on his head, legs, stomach, neck and face, he was admitted to S.E.C.L. Bhatgaon Hospital for -3- treatment where he died during treatment. The driver of the motorcycle Tarun Kumar Rajwade also died during treatment at Jeevan Jyoti Hospital, Ambikapur. At the time of the accident, deceased Shubham Gupta was about 16 years old and was a student, but due to his untimely motor accidental death, the applicants have suffered irreparable loss and they have been deprived of the benefits of the said dependency. It was further pleaded that since on the date of accident, non-applicant No.1 was the registered owner of the motorcycle involved in the accident and non-applicant No.2 was its insurer, therefore, they be given compensation amounting to Rs.15,50,000/- (Fifteen lakh, fifty thousand rupees) from the non-applicants separately or jointly. 4. Non-applicant No.1 in his written statement, apart from accepting the undisputed facts, has denied all other allegations of the applicants and has stated that at the time of the accident, Shubham Gupta was driving the motorcycle on his own without taking permission or consent from him. Consequently, Shubham Gupta and the insurance company are themselves responsible for the entire loss caused by the accident. Therefore, it is prayed, the claim of the applicants against non-applicant No.1 be dismissed. 5. Respondent No.2/Insurance company in its written statement, apart from accepting the undisputed facts, has denied all other allegations of the applicants and has stated that the applicants -4- have wrongly involved the motorcycle in this case only with the desire to get compensation. On the date of the accident Tarun Rajwade did not have a license to drive a motorcycle. Knowing this, non-applicant No.1 gave him the motorcycle to drive, which was in violation of the conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, it is prayed, claim of the applicants may be dismissed. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of incident, Tarun Kumar Rajwade (deceased) drove the offending vehicle- motorcycle bearing registration C.G./15-CV- 7943 owned by non-applicant No.1 and insured with non- applicant No.2 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which Shubham Gupta sustained serious injuries resulting in his death. Recording a finding that the non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company could not prove that the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy, learned Claims Tribunal held non-applicant No.2/Insurance company liable to pay the compensation to the applicants/claimants. Assessing annual income of the deceased, a student, to be Rs.54,000/- per annum (4500 x 12) and calculating the loss suffered by the claimants under different heads and compensation therefor, awarded total amount of compensation of Rs7,50,400/ -. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased -5- on lower side as Rs.4,500/- only overlooking the fact that on the date of incident i.e. 09.07.2016 age of the deceased was 16 years only. She also contented that amount of compensation awarded on other heads is on lower side. 8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 supports the award. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurance company opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and would submit that as per pleadings and evidence deceased was a student and it has only been pleaded that he was helping his father in the work and, therefore, Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month on notional basis which does not call for any interference. He also contended that future prospects is also awarded in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 and amount of compensation awarded under other heads is also just and proper. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. 11. In this case, it is undisputed that the accident-causing motorcycle bearing registration No.-CG 15/CV-7943 was insured with respondent No.2/ Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company for the period from 23/03/2016 to 22/03/2017. It is also undisputed that on the date of accident, the registered owner of the said -6- motorcycle was non-applicant No.1. Motor accidental death of Shubham Gupta, a student aged 16 years is not disputed. Liability fastened upon non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company to satisfy the amount of compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal is also not in dispute. Only ground raised in this appeal is with respect to enhancement of amount of compensation on the afore-discussed ground. 12. Perusal of the pleadings made and evidence brought on record by the claimants/appellants would show that the deceased Shubham Gupta was a student and he used to help in the work of his father. He is not engaged separately for the purpose of earning any livelihood. Learned Claims Tribunal assessed income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month on notional basis. Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal while assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/-. 13. In the case at hand, respondent No.2/Insurance company has not challenged the award so far as it relates to assessing of income of the deceased to be Rs.4,500/- per month. Learned Tribunal has awarded 40% towards future prospects as also Rs. Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of child in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), which in the facts and circumstances of the case, appears to be proper and does not warrant any interference. -7- However, the appellants/claimants who are the parents of the deceased are also entitled for loss of filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 130. Therefore, this Court finds it appropriate to award Rs.40,000/- to appellants No.1 & 2 each being parents of the deceased. Thus, in addition to the amount of compensation of Rs.7,50,400/- already awarded by learned Claims Tribunal, claimants/appellants No. 1 & 2 are also entitled for additional compensation of Rs.80,000/- (40,000 + 40,000). Now, the appellants/claimants are awarded the total compensation of Rs. 8,30,400/- (7,50,400 + 80,000). 14. The amount of Rs.80,000/- which is now being awarded to appellant No. 1 & 2/claimant additionally towards loss of filial consortium shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimant/appellant shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated by this Court. Other conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 15. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein above. Sd/- Sd/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen