1 CGHC010026002025 2026:CGHC:30221 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 213 of 2025 1 - Suraj Kumar Choudhary S/o Late Keshav Ram Choudhary Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Dhaneli Post Dhaneli Tahsil Gurur District - Balod (C.G.) (Claimants). 2 - Ku. Bhumika Choudhary D/o Late Keshav Ram Choudhary Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Dhaneli Post Dhaneli Tahsil Gurur District - Balod (C.G.). 3 - Smt. Rambati Choudhary Wd/o Late Dukaluram Aged About 73 Years R/o Village Dhaneli Post Dhaneli Tahsil Gurur District - Balod (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1 - Mahendra Chaturvedi S/o Shri Teekaram Chaturvedi Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Khapri (B) Tahsil Gunderdehi District - Balod (C.G.) (Driver Of The Vehicle No. (C.G.) /04/ Hd /5569). 2 - Mordhwaj S/o Shri Mannu Lal Aged About 32 Years R/o Nagar Gunderdehi Tahsil Gunderdehi District -Balod (C.G.) (Owner Of The Vehicle No. (C.G.)/ 04/HD/ 5569). 3 - The Branch Manager Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited Plot No. 01 4th Floor Maruti Heights Beside R.K. Mall Grate Eastern Road Maruti Vihar Kota Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer of The Vehicle No. (C.G.)/ 04/hd / 5569) ... Respondents For the appellants : Smt. Dhaneshari Patel, Mr. N.K. Kashyap and Umesh Pandey, Advocates For Respondent no.3 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 16.07.2026 2 1. Heard on I.A.No.1 condonation of delay in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application which is supported by the affidavit of appellant no.1 and since this appeal is preferred by claimants, delay of 163 days is condoned. Application is allowed. Heard on admission. Admit. Records received. Heard finally. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 01.05.2024 passed by the learned 1st Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh in Claim Case No.100/2023 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.14,04,800/- as compensation for the death of deceased. 3. As per the pleadings of the claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, on 05,05.2023 deceased KeshavChaudhari along with his wife was returning to his home situated in village Dhaneli from village Gurur on Motorcycle bearing Regn. C.G. 05/1027. On the way when they reached near a Bore Pump at village Bortara, respondent no.1 who was driving the Indica Car No. C.G. 04-HD/5569 in rash and negligent way hit the deceased’s motor cycle, resultantly the deceased and his wife both sustained grievous injuries and died during treatment at Gurur Hospital. Appellant No.1 is son, appellant No. 2 is daughter and appellant no.3 is mother of deceased. Thus the appellants being legal heirs of deceased filed claim application u/s 166 of MVA seeking a total compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs on various heads. 4. The learned claims Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence brought on record and the pleadings made in application, took the monthly income of deceased as Rs.9960/-, looking to his age i.e., 48 years and number of dependents added 25% future prospectus, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applied multiplier of 13 and thus worked out the total loss of dependency at Rs.12,94,800/-. 3 Further more, Rs. 1,10,000/- has been awarded on other heads. Thus a total compensation of Rs. 14,04,800/- has been awarded for the death of deceased in favour of the appellants with interest @ 9%% per annum from the date of application till its realisation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants does not touch the total loss of dependency worked out by the Tribunal and confines his argument to the lumpsum figure of Rs.80,000/- granted to all the 3 dependents of deceased towards loss of consortium. He submits that parental and filial consortium must be granted to each dependent individually, rather than at a joint lump-sum figure and as such, each claimant is entitled for Rs.48,000/-. He further submits that the amounts granted for funeral expenses Rs.15,000 and loss of estate Rs.15,000/- are also lesser. Therefore, the award be enhanced suitably. 6. Learned counsel for respondent no.3/Insurer submits that the Tribunal has passed the just award which needs no interference. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. In view of the limited prayer made by the appellants, this Court is inclined to only touch the compensation granted under the other heads. The tribunal has granted a lumpsum of Rs.80,000/- towards loss of consortium for all the claimants. Under Motor Accident Claims, the Supreme Court has established that every individual dependent is entitled to a separate compensation for the loss of parental/filial consortium. Further after every 3 years, the principle of 10% automatic enhancement will apply to conventional heads like loss of consortium. Thus, each claimant is entitled to Rs.48,000/- separately and the total comes to Rs.1,44,000 for 3 children (48,000 x 3). 9. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid discussion and in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680; Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Nanu Ram @ Chuhru 4 Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130 , this Court is computing the compensation as below : Sl.No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Total loss of dependency Rs.9,960. X 12 =1,19,520/- plus 25% Future Prospectus- i.e., 29,880/- = 1,49,400/- minus 1/3 deduction of personal expenses i.e., 49,800 = 99,600 x 13 multiplier = 12,94,800/- 12,94,800/- (unchanged) 2. Loss of estate 15,000/- 18,000/- 3. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 18,000/- 4. Loss of consortium or loss of love and affection 80,000/- 48,000 x 3 dependents 1,44,000/- Total Rs. 14,04,800/- Rs. 14,74,800/- 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. Rs. 14,04,800/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 14,74,800/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 14,04,800/- the appellants held entitled for an additional sum of Rs.70,000/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 11. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge Rao