1 CGHC010074042023 2026:CGHC:41985 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 360 of 2023 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, Through Baranch Manager, M.B. Trade Center, Second Floor, Near Gandhi Chowk Dhamtari, Tahsil And District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh (Insurer of Vehicle Truck No. C.G. 04. G- 4890) (Non Applicant No. 2) --- Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Sevti Bai Sahu Wd/o Late Palturam Sahu Aged About 41 Years R/o Village and Post Office Khamhariya, Post Office Khamhariya Tahsil Nagri, District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 2 - Kumari Nima Sahu D/o Late Palturam Sahu Aged About 19 Years R/o Village and Post Office Khamhariya, Post Office Khamhariya, Tahsil Nagri, District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 3 - Minor Kumari Sarita D/o Late Palturam Sahu Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sevti Bai Sahu Wd/o Late Palturam Sahu R/o Village and Post Office Khamhariya, Post Office Khamhariya,tahsil Nagri, District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 4 - Minor Kumari Arti D/o Late Palturam Sahu Aged About 11 Years Minor through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sevti Bai Sahu Wd/o Late Palturam Sahu R/o Village and Post Office Khamhariya Post Office Khamhariya, Tahsil Nagri, District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 5 - Diwakar Jain S/o Padmakar Jain Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Jail Road, Bathena Ward Dhamtari, Post, Tahsil and District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh (Driver - Cum - Owner of Vehicle Truck No. C.G. 04 - G 4890) --- Respondents For the appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Advocate For respondents 1 to 4 : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate 2 MAC No. 200 of 2023 1 - Smt. Sevati Bai Sahu Wd/o Lt. Palturam Sahu, Aged About 41 Years (Wife of The Deceased), 2 - Ku. Nima Sahu, D/o Lt. Palturam Sahu, Aged About 19 Years Nil 3 - Ku. Sarita Sahu, D/o Lt. Palturam Sahu, Aged About 15 Years (Minor) Represented By Their Natural Guardian Appellant No. 1 Smt. Sevati Bai, Wd/o Lt. Palturam Sahu. 4 - Ku. Aarti Sahu, D/o Lt. Palturam Sahu, Aged About 11 Years (Minor) Represented By Their Natural Guardian Appellant No. 1 Smt. Sevati Bai, Wd/o Lt. Palturam Sahu. (Claimants) --- Appellants Versus 1 - Diwakar Jain S/o Padmakar Jain, Aged About 39 Years R/o - Village Jail Road Bathena Ward Dhamtari, Post, Tehsil and District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh (Owner and Driver of Truck No. C G 04 G 4890) 2 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Through Branch Officer - M.B. Trade Center, 2nd Floor, Near Gandhi Chowk, Dhamtari, Tehsil And District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh (Insurer of Truck No. C G 04 G 4890) --- Respondents For appellants : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate For respondent no.2 : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 26/09/2026 1. MAC No.200 of 2023 under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement, challenging the award dated 08.12.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, in Claim Case No. 156/2019 whereby a total compensation of Rs.12,92,672/- has been awarded for the death of deceased. 2. MAC No. 360 of 2023 has been filed by the Insurer against the same award dated 08.12.2022 on the ground that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is excessive and there was breach of policy. Since both these 3 appeals are arising out of the same award, they are decided by this common order. 3. The pleadings made in claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act are that deceased Paltu Ram Sahu, aged about 46 years, died in a motor accident occurred on 11.08.2019 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 who drove the offending Truck No. C.G. 04-G/4890 which hit the deceased. Appellant no.1 is wife, appellants 2 to 4 are daughters. Applicant no.5 Paravu Ram Sahu (died) father of deceased was also one of the claimants before the Tribunal. They being legal heirs of deceased filed claim application u/s 166 of MVA seeking a total compensation of Rs. 42 lakhs lakhs on different heads. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants (claimants) is that the income taken by the Tribunal is on lower side and further the joint lumpsum of Rs.75,000/- granted by the tribunal under the head “loss of consortium” for appellants 2 to 4 is also very meagre, therefore, just compensation has not been awarded. He prays that the appeal filed by the claimants be allowed and compensation awarded by the Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the insurance company is that at the time of accident, the offending truck was driven without any valid permit and as such, the breach of policy was found by the Tribunal, however, it has passed the pay and recover order which cannot be allowed to sustain. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. The claimants pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing the job of head-mason. However, the Tribunal took the monthly income of deceased as Rs.7800/-, which is on lower side. In absence of any evidence regarding income and nature of job and looking to 4 the prevalent market rates, it would be appropriate to take her monthly income to be Rs. 8400/- treating her as unskilled labour as per the notifications of Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages applicable at the time of accident dated 11.08.2019. 8. Since the age of deceased was found to be 46 years and there are 4 dependents, following the case-law laid down by Supreme Court, the Tribunal has rightly added 25% future prospectus, deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses and applied multiplier 13 which cannot be said to be unsustainable. 9. The amounts awarded under the other heads i.e., 16,500/- for loss of estate and Rs.16,500/- for loss of consortium needs no interference. Under the loss of spousal consortium, the Tribunal has granted Rs.44,000/- to the wife. However, a joint lumpsum of Rs.75,000/- granted for parental consortium for the 3 daughters seems to be lesser. Under Motor Accident Claims, the Supreme Court has established that every individual child is entitled to a separate compensation for the loss of parental consortium. Thus each claimant daughter is entitled to Rs.44,000/- separately and total comes to Rs.1,76,000/- for the wife and 3 daughters towards loss of consortium. 10. 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 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 11,40,672/- Rs. 8400 x 12 =100800 plus 5 Future Prospectus 25% 25,200 =126000/- minus 1/4th deduction of personal expenses i.e., 31,500/- = 94,500/- x multiplier 13 12,28,500/- 2. Loss of estate 16,500/- 16,500/- 3. Funeral expenses 16,500/- 16,500/- 4. Loss of consortium for the wife and 3 daughters ( 44,000/- + 75,000) 1,19,000 /- 44,000 x 4 dependents) 1,76,000/- Total Rs. 12,92,672/- 14,37,500/- 11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 12,92,672/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 14,37,500/- Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 12,92,672/- the appellants are held entitled for an additional sum of Rs.1,44,828/-. 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. 12. In this case, considering the evidence placed on record, the Tribunal has found that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was driven without valid permit, therefore, there was breach of terms of insurance policy. However, following the law laid down by Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Vs. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 6 and Amrit Paul Singh Versus Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd (2018) 7 SCC 558, the Tribunal has directed the Insurance Company to first pay the compensation and then recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending truck. 13. Considering the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Amrit Paul Singh’s (Supra) and taking note of the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly the fact that at the time of accident the vehicle was insured with Insurance Company, the pay and recover order made by the Tribunal cannot be said to be unsustainable. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the claimants is partly allowed while the appeal filed by the Insurance company is dismissed. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge Rao ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.09.29 10:18:27 +0530