1 2025:CGHC:32515 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 486 of 2020 1 - Bhanu Devi Wd/o Late Dilip Devnath Aged About 44 Years 2 - Rana Devnath S/o Late Dilip Devnath Aged About 17 Years 3 - Panna Devnath S/o Late Dilip Devnath Aged About 20 Years No.2 minor, through natural guardian mother, appellant No.1, Bhanu Devi, All are R/o Near Taar Bahar Fatak, Taarbahar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants versus 1 - Tahir Khan S/o Shri Saahbddin Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Sheetal, Police Station Bododamev, District Alvar, Rajasthan, ( Driver Of Truck No. Rj 02 Ga/6462), 2 - Ishaq Khan S/o Shri Tatadiya Khan Aged About 26 Years R/o 18 Budh Sheetal Laxmangarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan, ( Owner Of Truck No. Rj 02 Ga/6462), 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Divisional Manager, Near Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer Of Truck No. Rj 02 Ga/6462), --- Respondents For Appellants : Ms. Bhagwati Kashyap, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 14/07/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.1, which is an application for condonation of delay of 947 days in filing the appeal. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposes the application and the submission made on behalf of appellants. He however, in alternate submits that if this Court considers to condone the delay then it may 2 be ordered that appellants will not be entitled for the interest for delayed period. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision in case of Lakkamma Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2021) 20 SCC 797. 3. Considering the pleadings made in the application as also the submission of learned counsel for respective parties I find it appropriate to allow the I.A. No.1, and condone the delay in filing this appeal. Accordingly, the I.A. No.1 is allowed and the delay of 947 days in filing this appeal is condoned. The appeal is admitted for hearing. 4. Learned counsel for respective parties submits that the liability to indemnify the amount of compensation is fastened upon respondent No.3/Insurance Company, hence with the consent of parties, the case is heard finally at motion stage. 5. Claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 18.04.2017 passed in Claim Case No.17/2015 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.51,88,361/- as compensation in a death case. 6. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming total compensation of Rs.72,54,000/- under different heads against the death of Dilip Devnath, who died in the road accident pleading therein that on 24.10.2014, Mr. Dilip Devnath was traveling to Ambikapur as a 3 pillion rider on a scooty driven by his son (Applicant No.3). When they reached the vicinity of the forest near Village Sonwahi, a truck bearing registration number RJ-02-GA-6462, driven recklessly and negligently by Non-Applicant No.1, came towards opposite direction and collided with the scooty and caused accident. As a result Dilip Devnath and applicant No.3 – Panna Devnath suffered serious injuries. Dilip Devnath was immediately taken to the District Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries during course of treatment. It was further pleaded at the time of accident, deceased was employed in SECL, Nawapara Colliery as General Majdoor on permanent basis and was getting monthly salary of Rs.50,229/-. Applicants were dependent upon them and due to untimely death of their sole bread earner, the appellants/claimants suffered irreparable loss. Applicant No.3, Panna Devnath, sustained a fracture in his right thigh bone along with multiple grievous injuries over various parts of his body. He was admitted as an inpatient at Jeevan Jyoti Hospital from 24th October 2014 to 25th October 2014. Subsequently, he was referred to Apollo Hospital in Bilaspur, where he remained admitted from 26th October 2014 to 8th November 2014, where his right leg was operated upon and a rod was implanted. 7. Non-applicants No.1 and 2 did not file their reply and remained ex- parte. Non-applicant No.3 filed reply to the application denying the averments made in the application. It was pleaded that accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of scooty by applicant No.3, who on the date of accident was not holding valid and effective driving license. Claim application was filed exaggerating the amount of 4 compensation. The offending vehicle was being plied without any permit and fitness certificate in breach of conditions of the insurance policy. 8. The learned Claims Tribunal after appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.51,88,361/-. 9. Learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding meager amount of compensation. It is contended that the learned Claims Tribunal fell into error in not adding any amount towards future prospects in the income of deceased as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. It is further contended that the compensation awarded under other conventional heads is also inadequate. Therefore, it is prayed that the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal be appropriately enhanced. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 -Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants and submits that the amount of compensation as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal in the facts of the case is just and proper, which does not call for any interference. 11. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 12. Claimants/appellants have filed this challenging the quantum of compensation only on two grounds firstly that learned Claims Tribunal 5 failed to add any amount towards future prospects in the assessed income of deceased and secondly that learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded proper amount of compensation towards loss of consortium and on other convention head to the appellants. 13. It has come in the pleading and evidence of the claimants that deceased was employed on permanent basis and working as General Mazdoor in SECL and was getting salary of Rs.50,229/-. The claimants/appellants have proved the occupation and income of the deceased and accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has assessed the annual income/salary of the deceased as Rs.50,229 x 12 = Rs.6,02,748/-. However, while computing the compensation failed to add any amount towards future prospects in the assessed income of the deceased. 14. Although no documentary evidence regarding the age of the deceased was placed on record, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly taken the age of the deceased to be 50 years, as per the postmortem report (Ex. P-7), which is not required to be interfered with. As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, in case the deceased is on permanent employment and was of age group between 50 to 60 years, there shall be addition of 15% towards loss of future prospects in the assessed income of the deceased. It is ordered accordingly. Accordingly, after addition of 15% towards loss of future prospects in the income of the deceased, the total annual income/salary of the deceased would be Rs.6,02,748 + 90,412 = 6,93,160/-. After deduction of Rs.25,550/- 6 towards income tax as deducted by learned Claims Tribunal, the total annual income of the deceased works out to Rs.6,67,660/-. 15. There is no dispute with respect to deduction of 1/3 towards personal living expenses of the deceased and application of multiplier of 13. Further perusal of the award would show that learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium to the appellant No.1 and Rs.10,000/- each to the appellant No.2 and 3 towards love and affection and Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses and no amount has been awarded towards loss of estate. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, has quantified the amount of compensation to be awarded under the head loss estate and funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/- each and Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium in a death case. Therefore, the appellants/claimants are also entitled for Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and for funeral expenses. It is ordered accordingly. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 has explained the types of consortium and held that there are three types of loss of consortium i.e. loss of spousal consortium for widow/widower, loss of parental consortium to the children and loss of filial consortium to parents. The appellant No.1 is wife and appellant No.2 & 3 are children of deceased, therefore, the appellant No.1 is entitled for spousal consortium and appellant No.2 & 3 are entitled for parental consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. It is ordered accordingly. Applicant/appellant No.2 and 3 shall not be 7 entitled for compensation under the head of love and affection as it subsumes under the head of loss of consortium. The amount of Rs.1,45,974/- awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal to applicant No.3 for the injury suffered by him in the said accident is not disputed by the parties, therefore, it is affirmed. 18. In case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that the amounts under other conventional heads should be revisited on percentage basis in every three years and enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of every three years. In case at hand, accident is of the year 2014. Hence, the appellants are entitled for 10% enhancement on the amount under other conventional heads. So, by enhancing the amount awarded under other conventional heads at the rate of 10%, the appellants are now entitled for a sum of Rs. 16,500/- each (15000+10% increase after 3 years) towards loss of estate and funeral expenses i.e. total Rs.33,000/- under both the heads. Likewise, appellants No.1 to 3 are entitled for Rs.44,000/- each (40,000 + 10% increase after 3 years) i.e. Rs.1,32,000/- for loss of consortium (spousal & parental). 19. On the basis of above, the compensation calculated by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :- SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. Annual income : 50,229 x 12 = 6,02,748.00 2. Addition of 15% towards future prospects : 6,02,748.00 + 90,412.00 = 6,93,160.00 3. After statutory deduction towards income tax : 6,19,160.00 – 25,550.00 =6,67,660.00 4. 1/3 deduction towards personal expenses : 6,67,660.00 – 2,22,553.00= 4,45,107.00 8 5. Loss of dependency after application of multiplier of 13 : 4,45,107 x 13 = 57,86,391.00 6. For loss of spousal and parental consortium to the appellants Rs.40,000/- each (44,000 x 3) : 1,32,000.00 7. For funeral expenses & for loss of estate : 33,000.00 9. Compensation towards injury suffered by appellant No.3 : 1,45,974.00 Grand Total : 60,97,365.00 20. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.60,97,365.00. Any amount paid to the appellants as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 21. It is further directed that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Lakkamma (supra), the appellants will not be entitled for the interest on the additional amount of compensation for the delayed period, which is of 947 days. 22. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram