1 / 8 2026:CGHC:22710 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 747 of 2021 1. Smt. Santola Singh W/o Late Bheshaj Kumar Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 47 Gangapur Khurd Ambikapur, Gandhinagar, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 2. Prashant Kumar Singh S/o Late Bheshaj Kumar Singh Aged About 22 Years R/o Ward No. 47 Gangapur Khurd Ambikapur, Gandhinagar, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 3. Vivek Kumar Singh S/o Late Bheshaj Kumar Singh Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward No. 47 Gangapur Khurd Ambikapur, Gandhinagar, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 4. Smt. Nandan Kunwar Singh W/o Mast Ram Paikra Aged About 72 Years R/o Ward No. 47 Gangapur Khurd Ambikapur, Gandhinagar, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 5. Mast Ram Paikra S/o Late Dhansay Paikra Aged About 47 Years R/o Ward No. 47 Gangapur Khurd Ambikapur, Gandhinagar, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants/ Applicants-Claimants versus 1. Vikram Singh S/o Janardan Singh Aged About 34 Years Occupation Vehicle Driver R/o Village Sarganwa (Majhlipara), P.S. Gandhinagar, Tehsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh 2. Upendra Kumar Singh S/o Karmu Ram Kanwar Occupation Vehicle Owner, R/o Village Dumarbhawana, P.S. And Tehsil Sitapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Truck No. C.G. 04 Z.C. 0369) 3. Branch Manager, S.B.I. General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Pujari Chambers, Fourth Floor, Pachpedhi Naka, Near Pujari Park, Dhamtari Road Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company Of Pajero Vehicle No. C.G. 15 C.W. 9099) 4. Smt. Minal Singh W/o Late Vinay Kumar Singh Aged About 37 Years R/o Tiwari Building Road Kedarpur Ambikapur, P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapour, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 5. Akbar Ansari S/o Eklak Ahmed @ Mohammad Ali Aged About 42 Years R/o Hospital Colony Sitapur, P.S. And Tehsil Sitapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ---Respondents/ Non-applicants 2 / 8 ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. C.J. K. Rao, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Dev Ashish Biswas, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Utsav Mahishwar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 13/05/2026 1. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”), challenging the award dated 11.12.2019 passed by Learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 70/2017, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 75,95,050/- as compensation in motor accidental death case and fastened liability upon Respondents No. 1,2 & 5, jointly and severally. 2. Motor accident occurred on 09.01.2017 at about 12:00 a.m. on Amibkapur- Pratappur road by the truck bearing number CG04 ZC 0369 (hereinafter referred to as “offending truck”) driven by non-applicant No. 1 rashly and negligently and death of Bheshaj Kumar Singh (deceased) in said motor accident, is not in dispute. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Plea of fixing liability is also raised in grounds of appeal. 3. For the foregoing discussion, this Court is not dealing with the facts of accident as pleaded by the parties in their claim application, reply to the claim application and further adverted in the impugned award but only considering the arguments raised by the counsel for respective parties on merits of this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that deceased Bheshaj Kumar Singh while travelling on Pajero vehicle bearing No. 3 / 8 CG15CW9099, owned and driven by Raja @ Vinay Singh met with an accident with offending truck suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries. An application seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 was filed and learned Claims Tribunal after considering the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties and the reply submitted by non-applicants therein including the insurance company of the Pajero vehicle has passed the impugned award awarding compensation of ₹ 75,95,050. He contended that the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation under the head of consortium only to appellant No. 1, widow of deceased and not to the other dependents who are children and parents of the deceased. He also contended that there are five claimants and therefore appropriate deduction towards personal and living expenses would be 1/4 instead of 1/3. He lastly contended that learned Claims Tribunal has not considered the fact that there was head-on-collusion between two vehicles and therefore claimants could have awarded compensation jointly and severally from all non-applicants i.e. driver, owner, insurer of both vehicles as deceased was occupant of the vehicles, impleaded therein. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 would submit that the amount of compensation computed and awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper, hence, it does not call for any interference. He would further submit that the appeal filed by Respondent No. 2/ Upendra Kumar Singh (owner of the offending truck) was dismissed in MAC No. 776/2020 vide order dated 25.06.2025. 6. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellants with regard to compensation to be awarded jointly and severally against respondents/ non-applicants on the ground that entire claim in the application is made against owner and driver of the offending truck. However, upon putting query, he does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for appellants that there was head-on- 4 / 8 collusion between the offending truck and the Pajero vehicle and further submits that Respondent No. 3 is insurer of Pajero vehicle. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 8. From the submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties, accident between the truck and the Pajero vehicle, registration number of which is mentioned in preceding paragraph, is not in dispute. Status of deceased Bheshaj Kumar Singh is to be occupant of Pajero vehicle at the time of accident is also not disputed. It is also not in dispute that Pajero vehicle was being driven by Vinay Singh who is also owner of the said vehicle. Respondent No. 3 being insurer of Pajero vehicle is also not disputed. 9. There is no finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that there was any breach of condition of insurance policy issued for the Pajero vehicle. In fact the issue whether Pajero vehicle is being driven in breach of policy conditions is decided in negative. Pleadings made in the application would show that claimants have very specifically pleaded that at the time of accident, Pajero vehicle was driven by Vinay Singh in a very rash and negligent manner. At that relevant point of time, offending truck was also being coming from opposite side driven by non-applicant No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner and accident was a result after drivers of both the vehicles could not take control of their vehicles. There is specific pleading in the claim application that there was negligence of both the vehicles. In the application, appellants- claimants have pleaded that compensation to be awarded against non- applicants jointly and severally. 10. From the aforementioned facts of the case, it is clearly appearing that there is specific pleading that there was rash and negligent driving of Pajero vehicle and relief is also claimed against driver and owner of both the vehicles jointly and severally. Claims Tribunal has not framed any issue in this regard nor 5 / 8 has discussed in the award. Issue No. 2 has been framed by the Claims Tribunal as to whether there was any breach of condition of insurance policy of issued for the Pajero vehicle, which has been decided as not proved. 11. In the aforementioned facts of the case, claimants/ legal representatives of deceased (occupant of Pajero vehicle) can claim compensation against owner, driver and the insurer of either of the two vehicles and they have also claimed against both the vehicles in relief clause. 12. As deceased was not driving the vehicle which met with accident with offending truck, principle of contributory negligence would not be attracted, it would be composite negligence. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T. O. Anthony v. Karvarnan and others reported in (2008) 3 SCC 748, has discussed the very issue of accident involving two vehicles and the liability to pay compensation and observed thus: “6. “Composite negligence” refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrongdoers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrongdoers. In such a case, each wrongdoer is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrongdoer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrongdoer separately. On the other hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence on the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stand reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence.” 13. In above facts of the case, claimants would be entitled to claim compensation against any one or both the vehicles. The claimants have sought 6 / 8 compensation against driver, owner and insurer of both the vehicles. The learned Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim against non-applicant No.3 -insurance company and respondent No.4-owner of the Pajero vehicle. Accordingly, said finding in para 25 (1) to the extent of exonerating respondent No.3 is set aside. 14. So far as submission of learned counsel for appellants with regard to application of deduction of 1/3 is concerned, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 has considered the issue of application of deduction towards personal and living expenses observing that where the deceased was married and number of claimants are 4 to 6, appropriate deduction shall be 1/4 and therefore in view of above decision and in the facts of the case, Claims Tribunal erred in applying deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses, which is not sustainable and it is set aside and it is ordered that towards personal and living expenses, deduction in the facts of the case, should be 1/4. It is ordered accordingly. 15. It is ordered accordingly. 15. Further perusal of award would show that the Claims Tribunal has correctly added 30% of the assessed income towards future prospects as the deceased was between 40 to 50 years of age and further awarded ₹ 15,000 towards loss of estate, ₹ 15,000 towards funeral expenses and ₹ 40,000 has been awarded towards loss of consortium to appellant No. 1, which are to the tune of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Tribunal has applied multiplier of 13 which in the facts of the case is also correctly applied and is in the tune of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Learned Tribunal further erred in not awarding compensation towards loss consortium to appellants No. 2 to 5 who are children and parents of deceased. Hon’ble 7 / 8 Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, has held that apart from awarding loss of spousal consortium to widow/ husband, children and parents of the deceased will also be entitled for loss of consortium under the head of loss of parental consortium and loss of filial consortium respectively. In the case at hand, appellants No. 2 & 3 are children and appellants No. 4 & 5 are parents of deceased, therefore, they are also entitle for loss of parental consortium and loss of filial consortium of ₹ 40,000/- each respectively. It is ordered accordingly. 16. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellants-claimants requires re-computation, which is as under. Particulars Compensation • Annual Loss of income/ dependency (maintained) = ₹ 6,20,196/- (₹ 51683x12) • Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 30% (₹ 6,20,196 + 30% of ₹ 6,20,196 = ₹ 8,06,255) • Deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses (₹ 8,06,255 x 1/4= ₹ 2,01,564); ₹ 8,06,255 - ₹ 2,01,564 = ₹ 6,04,691/- • Multiplier of 13 ₹ 6,04,691 x 13 = ₹ 78,60,983/- ₹ 78,60,983/- Loss of Spousal Consortium to Appellant No. 1 (maintained) ₹ 40,000/- Loss of Parental consortium to Appellants No. 2 & 3 (₹ 40,000 each) ₹ 80,000/- Loss of Filial consortium to Appellants No. 4 & 5 (₹ 40,000 each) ₹ 80,000/- Loss of estate (maintained) ₹ 15,000/- Funeral Expenses (maintained) ₹ 15,000/- Total ₹ 80,90,983/- 17. Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 80,90,983/- instead of ₹ 75,95,050/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. Liability of satisfying the amount of compensation is fastened upon 8 / 8 non-applicants jointly and severally. The amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. • Any amount paid to the appellants-claimants pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above and held the appellants entitled. • Rest of the conditions as imposed by the Claims Tribunal in the impugned award shall remain intact. 18. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/-Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY Date: 2026.05.18 17:16:25 +0530