1 2026:CGHC:19199 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 676 of 2024 1 - Chandrakali W/o Late Amardas Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Tarponga, P.O. Vishrampur, P.S. Simga, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kumari Champa, D/o Late Amardas Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Chandrakali The Appellant No. 1. R/o Ward No. 14, Tarponga, P.O. Vishrampur, P.S. Simga, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 3 - Kumari Chameli D/o Late Amardas Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Chandrakali The Appellant No. 1. R/o Ward No. 14, Tarponga, P.O. Vishrampur, P.S. Simga, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 4 - Kuldip S/o Late Amardas Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Chandrakali The Appellant No. 1. R/o Ward No. 14, Tarponga, P.O. Vishrampur, P.S. Simga, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 5 - Dukhit Ram, S/o Late Murva Aged About 67 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Tarponga, P.O. Vishrampur, P.S. Simga, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 6 - Mohan Bai, W/o Shri Dukhit Ram Aged About 61 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Tarponga, P.O. Vishrampur, P.S. Simga, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Santosh Kumar S/o Shri Balram Pal R/o Village Suhela, P.O. And P.S. Suhela, District Blodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Driver And Occupant Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G. -04- Jd7035) 2 - Ranu Yadu W/o Shri Satruhan Yadu R/o Shanti Niketan, Over Bridge Bajrang Mandir, Chedikhedi, P.S. Mandirhasoud Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Registered Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G. -04-Jd7035) 3 - The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Divisional Manager Life Insurance Office, Pandari, Raipur P.S. Pandari, Tahsil Simga, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. P. Dutta, Advocate HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2026.05.05 17:01:37 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board 25.04.2026 1) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants, being aggrieved by the award dated 28.08.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) (for short “the learned Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 590/2021. 2) By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs. 86,70,000/- the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 48,41,165/- as compensation on account of the death of the deceased/Amardas Markandey in a motor accident that occurred on 18.02.2021 due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e., Truck bearing registration No. CG-04-JD-7035, driven by respondent No. 1 (occupant owner), owned by respondent No. 2 (registered owner) and insured with respondent No. 3. 3) Respondent No. 1 filed his written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. Respondent No. 2 remained ex parte before the learned Tribunal. Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company, in the usual course, denied the averments of the claim application and pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and that there was a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 4) On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed four issues and after appreciating the material available on record decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded the aforesaid compensation. 5) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has correctly assessed the monthly income of the deceased, duly added future prospects, deducted personal expenses appropriately and thereby arrived at a just compensation. However, it is contended that instead of awarding Rs. 44,000/- each as parental consortium to all three children (appellant Nos. 2 to 4), the learned Tribunal awarded only Rs. 44,000/- collectively. He further submits that instead of awarding Rs. 44,000/- each as filial consortium to 3 appellant Nos. 5 and 6, only a sum of Rs. 44,000/- was awarded in total. It is, therefore, submitted that an additional sum of Rs. 1,32,000/- may be awarded towards parental and filial consortium to appellant Nos. 2 to 6. 6) Learned counsel for respondent No. 3/Insurance Company supports the impugned award and submits that, in view of the evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, the compensation awarded is just, proper and does not warrant any interference. 7) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions, and perused the record. 8) A perusal of the impugned award indicates that three minor children were dependent upon the income of the deceased. Apart from them, the parents of the deceased were also dependents. The learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 44,000/- towards filial consortium and Rs. 44,000/- towards parental consortium. In the opinion of this Court, the said amount is inadequate. Accordingly, an additional sum of Rs. 1,32,000/- is awarded towards filial and parental consortium so as to render the compensation just and reasonable. 9) Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation, as awarded by this Court, within a period of 60 days. Upon such deposit being made, the learned Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders with regard to apportionment, investment, and disbursement of the enhanced amount in favour of the appellants/claimants No. 2 to 6. 10) Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari