Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited 2nd Floor, Shop No. 205, M.M.Silvar Plaza, In v. 1 - Ravi Kumar S/o Raminder Yadav R/o Sangam Chowk, New Khursipar Bhilai, P.S
Case Details
1 YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.06.30 19:03:53 +0530 2025:CGHC:26967 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 570 of 2018 Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited 2nd Floor, Shop No. 205, M.M.Silvar Plaza, In Front Of Udyog Bhawan, Near Mining Office, Ring Road No. 1, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer) --- Appellant Versus 1 - Ravi Kumar S/o Raminder Yadav R/o Sangam Chowk, New Khursipar Bhilai, P.S. Bhilai-3, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Driver), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Raminder S/o Late Beerwal Yadav R/o Sangamchowk New Khursipar Bhilai, P.S. Bhilai-3, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Owner), 3 - Rajesh Singh S/o Late Shivsingh Kushwaha Aged About 45 Years R/o D-158, M.R.Colony, Tagorenagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Vidhya Singh W/o Rajesh Singh Kushwaha Aged About 44 Years R/o D-158, M.R.Colony, Tagorenagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Vivek Singh S/o Rajesh Singh Kushwaha Aged About 20 Years R/o D-158, M.R.Colony, Tagorenagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Claimants). --- Respondents MAC No. 453 of 2018 1 - Ravi Kumar S/o Ramindar Yadav, R/o Sangam Chawk, New Khurshipar, Bhilai, Thana Bhilai-3, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G. 07 A.Q. 9991) 2 - Ramindar S/o Late Birbal Yadav, R/o Sangam Chawk, New Khurshipar, Bhilai, Thana Bhilai-3, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G. 07 A.Q. 9991) Versus --- Appellants 2 1 - Rajesh Singh S/o Late Shivsingh Kushwaha Aged About 45 Years R/o D/158, M.R.Colony, Taigore Nagar, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Viddhya Sing W/o Rajesh Singh Kushwaha Aged About 44 Years R/o D/158, M.R.Colony, Taigore Nagar, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Vivek Singh S/o Rajesh Singh Aged About 20 Years R/o D/158, M.R.Colony, Taigore Nagar, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Claimants) 4 - Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Through Officer In Charge, Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, 205 M.M.Silver Plaza, Ring Road No.1, (In Front Of Khanij Bhawan), Thana Telibandha, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle No. C.G.- 07-A.Q.-9991) --- Respondents MAC No. 1688 of 2017 1 - Rajesh Singh S/o Late Shivsingh Kushwaha Aged About 45 Years R/o D - 158, M. R., Colony Taigornagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Vidya Singh W/o Rajesh Singh Kushwaha Aged About 44 Years R/o D - 158, M. R. , Colony Taigornagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Vivek Singh S/o Rajesh Singh Kushwaha Aged About 20 Years R/o D - 158, M. R., Colony Taigornagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---Appellants Versus 1 - Ravi Kumar S/o Raminder Yadav R/o Sangam Chowk New Khursipar Bhilai, Thana Bhilai - 3, District Durg Chhattisgarh. Respondents Non Applicant No. 1 / Driver Of Vehicle No. C G 07 A Q - 9991 2 - Raminder S/o Late Birval Yadav R/o Sangam Chowk New Khursipar Bhilai Thana Bhilai - 3 District Durg Chhattisgarh . Non Applicant No. 2 / Owner Of Vehicle No. C G 07 A Q – 9991 3 - I F F C O Tokio General Insurance Company Limited . Through Officer In Charge Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. 205 M M Silver Plaza , Ring Road No. 1 (In Front Of Khanij Bhawan) Thana Telibandha Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Non Applicant No. 3 / Insurer Of Vehicle No. C G 07 A Q - 9991 (Vehicle No. Wrongly Mentioned As C G 07 / A Q 999 In The Cause Title Of Award) --- Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) 3 For Claimants : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate For Owner & Driver: Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate For Company Insurance Mr. P.R. Patankar and Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocates Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 23.06.2025 1. As all the three appeals arise out of same accident and common question is involved in it, therefore, they have been clubbed together, heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Challenge in all the appeals is to the award dated 25.10.2017 passed by the Fourth Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.527/2015 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application of the claimants in part, awarded Rs.15,71,275/- as total compensation and fastened the liability for payment of compensation to the non-applicants therein i.e. owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle jointly and severally. However, the Insurance Company has first pay the amount of compensation and the same shall be recovered from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle by pursuing appropriate steps in accordance with law. 4 3. MAC No.570/2018 has been filed by the Insurance Company while challenging the order of pay and recovery of the awarded amount as the liability fastened upon the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, but learned Claims Tribunal has directed the
Legal Reasoning
Insurance Company to pay the awarded amount first and then to recover the same from the driver and owner of the vehicle. 4. MAC No.1688 of 2017 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of amount of compensation stating that the Claims Tribunal has awarded meagre amount of compensation, which needs to be enhanced suitably. 5. MAC No.453/2018 has been filed by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle questioning the liability fastened upon the owner and driver of the offending vehicle while holding that the cheque issued for insurance policy was dishonored, as such the offending vehicle will be treated without any policy. 6. Brief facts of these appeals, in a nutshell, are that, on 12.04.2015, at about 5.00 PM, driver of the vehicle bearing registration No.CG-07/AQ/9991 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) while driving the same rashly and negligently, dashed it with tree near Sports Complex at Aamroad, Amarkantak, District Anuppur (M.P.), due to which, Rahul Kushwaha, who was travelling in the said vehicle suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 5 7. The legal heirs of Rahul Kushwaha have filed an application under Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘M.V. Act’) seeking total compensation of Rs.45,20,000/- on the ground that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 25 years, earning Rs.16,311/- by working in Yes Bank. 8. Learned Claims Tribunal has issued notice to the owner and driver of the offending vehicle as well as insurer of the offending vehicle. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle have filed their written statement while stating that the driver was driving the vehicle with due diligence and it was not being driven any rash and negligent act. However, due to mechanical faults of the vehicle as the steering was failed, the accident occurred. Since the vehicle was insured, as such insurer of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation. 9. Written statement was also field by the Insurance Company while stating that the claim application filed by the claimants are not in accordance with law. The claimants are not dependent upon the deceased, in fact the deceased was dependent upon the claimants. The offending vehicle bearing registration No.CG-07/AQ/9991 has been issued insurance policy subject to realization of the cheque No.005289 of the State Bank of India, Bhilai District Durg dated 25.03.2015 for a sum of Rs.21,540/- as premium amount. The cheque was issued to the Insurance Company, however, when the Insurance Company has deposited the cheque in its account at IDBI Bank, the cheque was 6 dishonored with a note that there is alteration other than date not allowed in CTS CHQS as such, the amount of premium could not be realized, hence, the same has been informed to the owner of the vehicle on 27.04.2015 through registered post and he was informed that the insurance policy issued in favour of the offending vehicle has been cancelled. 10. The owner of the vehicle has also sent a notice to the Insurance Company, which was replied by the Insurance Company stating that due to default of encashment of cheque amount, the insurance policy has been cancelled and as such, the vehicle was without any insurance policy. Hence, with effect of cancellation of the insurance policy, it would be held that the vehicle was run without valid insurance policy. 11. Learned Claims Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties have framed issues, by which while deciding the issue No.1, it has been held that on the date of accident i.e. 12.04.2015, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle, vehicular accident occurred, in which son of the claimants, namely Rahul Kushwaha expired. The Claims Tribunal further decided the issue No. 2, by which it has been held by the Claims Tribunal that on the date of incident, the vehicle was being run without valid insurance policy, which is not in accordance with law as such, due to lack of insurance policy, the owner and driver are liable to pay the compensation. However, the Insurance Company was directed to pay compensation at the first instance and to 7 recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. The claimants were held to be entitled for a sum of Rs.15,71,275/-. The said amount was directed to be paid by the Insurance Company and to recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle holding them to be liable to pay compensation. 12.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that though a cheque dated 25.03.2015 (Ex.D/1) was issued to the Insurance Company in respect of the premium amount to the tune of Rs.21,540/-, however, upon depositing the same in the IDBI Bank by the Insurance Company, it was not encashed with a note that alteration other than date not allowed in CTS CHQS and as such, the amount of cheque could not be encashed. He further submits that the concerned bank has return the cheque along with said cheque on 18.04.2015. Upon receipt of cheque return by the Bank along with said note on 27.04.2015, the Insurance Company informed about the same to the insured i.e. owner of the offending vehicle and further it has been informed that the insurance policy issued in favour of the offending vehicle has been cancelled, in turn owner of the offending vehicle has also issued notice to the Insurance Company, which was duly replied. It has been contended that since the amount in respect of premium has not been realized, as such, insurance policy was cancelled and it was not effective on the date of incident. As such, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay amount of 8 compensation to the claimants and to recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company being MAC No.570/2018 is required to be allowed and the said direction issued by the Claims Tribunal is required to be modified. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the driver and owner of the offending vehicle by filing separate appeal being MAC No.453/2018 while challenging the liability fastened upon them by the Claims Tribunal has argued that on the date and time of the accident, the vehicle was duly insured and the insurance policy was issued to the owner of the offending vehicle. However, subsequently, on 27.04.2015, the insurance policy has been cancelled by the Insurance Company on the ground that amount of cheque could not be encashed due to the reason that there are some correction in the cheque. It was further argued that it is not the case that cheque was dishonound on the basis of insufficient amount. It has been contended that on the date and time of accident, the vehicle was duly insured, as such the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal while holding that the offending vehicle was not having any insurance policy on the date and time of the accident, is per se bad and illegal. It has been further contended that cancellation of insurance policy has been informed later i.e. after the accident, as such contention as raised by the Insurance Company is not in accordance with law and as such, the liability fastened upon the Insurance Company is 9 liable to be dismissed and the finding in respect of liability part is required to be modified while holding that the vehicle was having valid insurance policy on the date and time of the accident. Hence, the appeal filed by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle being MAC No.453/2018 is required to be allowed and the liability be fastened only on the Insurance Company. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the cases, this Court finds it appropriate to decide the issue of liability at first. 15. From the record of the claim case, it is quite vivid that on the date and time of the accident, the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and the cheque was issued by the owner of the offending vehicle to the Insurance Company in respect of the amount of premium. The insurance policy was issued to the owner of the vehicle on 25.03.2015, however, subsequently, on 18.04.2015, when the amount could not be encashed due to correction in the cheque, the Insurance Company cancelled the insurance policy on 27.04.2015 whereas the date of accident is 12.04.2015. At the date and time of incident, the owner of the vehicle was under the bonafide belief that his vehicle was insured. 16. The said issue had come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmamma and others reported in 2012 AIR SCW 2657 and while dismissing the appeal of the Insurance Company, the 10 Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment has held in paragraphs-8 to 15, as under:- “8. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the M.V. Act') in Chapter XI deals with insurance of motor vehicles against third party risks. Section 145 in that Chapter provides for definitions: (a) authorised insurer, (b) certificate of insurance, (c) liability, (d) policy of insurance, (e) property, (f) reciprocating country and (g) third party. 9. Section 146 mandates insurance of a motor vehicle against third party risk. Inter alia, it provides that no person shall use the motor vehicle in a public place unless a policy of insurance has been taken with regard to such vehicle complying with requirements as set out in Chapter XI. The owner of vehicle, thus, is statutorily mandated to obtain insurance for the motor vehicle to cover the third party risk except in exempted and exception categories as set out in Section 146 itself. 10. Section 147 makes provision for requirements of policies and limits of liability. Sub-section (5) thereof is relevant for the present purposes which reads as follows: "S. 147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability.- (1)) to (4) XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, an 11 insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons." 11. Section 149 deals with the duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks. Sub-section (1) which is relevant for the present purposes reads as under: "S.149.- Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks.-(1) If, after a certificate of insurance has been issued under sub-section (3) of section 147 in favour of the person by whom a policy has been effected, judgment or award in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 147 (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy) or under the provisions of section 163A is obtained against any person insured by the policy, then, notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy, the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder, as if he were the judgment debtor, in respect of the liability, 12 together with any amount payable in respect of costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments." 12. The above provisions came up for consideration in the case of Inderjit Kaur (AIR 1998 SC 588 : 1998 AIR SCW 183). That was a case where a bus met with an accident. The policy of insurance was issued by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited on November 30, 1989. The premium for the policy was paid by cheque but the cheque was dishonoured. The insurance company sent a letter to the insured on January 23, 1990 that the cheque towards premium had been dishonoured and, therefore, the insurance company was not at risk. The premium was paid in cash on May 2, 1990 but in the meantime on April 19, 1990 the accident took place, the bus collided with the truck and the truck driver died. The truck driver's wife and minor sons filed claim petition. A three-Judge Bench of this Court noticed the above provisions and then held in paragraphs 9, 10 and 12 (pages 375 and 376) (of SCC): (Paras 7, 8 and 10 of AIR, AIR SCW) as under: "9. We have, therefore, this position. Despite the bar created by Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act, the appellant, an authorised insurer, issued a policy of insurance to cover the bus without 13 receiving the premium therefor. By reason of the provisions of Sections 147(5) and 149(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant became liable to indemnify third parties in respect of the liability which that policy covered and to satisfy awards of compensation in respect thereof notwithstanding its entitlement (upon which we do not express any opinion) to avoid or cancel the policy for the reason that the cheque issued in payment of the premium thereon had not been honoured. 10. The policy of insurance that the appellant issued was a representation upon which the authorities and third parties were entitled to act. The appellant was not absolved of its obligations to third parties under the policy because it did not receive the premium. Its remedies in this behalf lay against the insured. 12. It must also be noted that it was the appellant itself who was responsible for its predicament. It had issued the policy of insurance upon receipt only of a cheque towards the premium in contravention of the provisions of Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act. The public interest that a policy of insurance serves must, clearly, prevail over the interest of the appellant." 13. In Inderjit Kaur, the Court invoked the doctrine of public interest and held that the insurance company was liable to indemnify 14 third parties in respect of the liability which the policy covered despite the bar created by Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act. The Court did leave open the question of insurer's entitlement to avoid or cancel the policy as against insured when the cheque issued for payment of the premium was dishonoured. 14. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rula and others, the Court was concerned with a question very similar to the question posed before us. That was a case where the insurance policy was issued by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. in terms of the requirements of the M.V. Act but the cheque by which the owner had paid the premium bounced and the policy was cancelled by the insurance company but before the cancellation of the policy, accident had taken place. A two-Judge Bench of this Court considered the statutory provisions contained in the M.V. Act and the judgment in Inderjit Kaur. In paragraph 13 (at page 200): (of SCC): (Para 11 of AIR, AIR SCW). the Court held as under: "13. This decision, which is a three-Judge Bench decision, squarely covers the present case also. The subsequent cancellation of the insurance policy in the instant case on the ground that the cheque through which premium was paid was dishonoured, would not affect the rights of the third party which had accrued on the issuance of the policy on the date on which 15 the accident took place. If, on the date of accident, there was a policy of insurance in respect of the vehicle in question, the third party would have a claim against the Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle would have to be indemnified in respect of the claim of that party. Subsequent cancellation of the insurance policy on the ground of non-payment of premium would not affect the rights already accrued in favour of the third party" (Emphasis supplied) 15. In Seema Malhotra (AIR 2001 SC 1197: 2001 AIR SCW 902), the Court was concerned with the question whether the insurer is liable to honour the contract of insurance where the insured gave a cheque to the insurer towards the premium amount but the cheque was dishonoured by the drawee bank due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the drawer. In the case of Seema Malhotra, the above question arose from the following facts: the owner of a Maruti car entered into an insurance contract with National Insurance Company Limited on December 21, 1993; on the same day the owner gave a cheque of Rs. 4,492/-towards the first instalment of the premium; the insurance company issued a cover note as contemplated in Section 149 of the M.V. Act; the car met with an accident on December 31, 1993 in which the owner died and the car was completely damaged; on January 10, 16 1994 the bank on which the cheque was drawn by the insured sent an intimation to the insurance company that the cheque was dishonoured as there were no funds in the account of the drawer and on January 20, 1994 the business concern of the owner was informed that the cheque having been dishonoured by the bank, the insurance policy is cancelled with immediate effect and the company is not at risk. The widow and children of the owner filed a claim for the loss of the vehicle with the insurance company. When the claim was repudiated, they moved the State Consumer Protection Commission (for short, 'Commission'). The Commission rejected the claim of the claimants and held that insurer was justified in repudiating the contract as soon as cheque got bounced. The claimants moved the Jammu and Kashmir High Court. The High Court reversed the order of the Commission and held that the insurance company chose to cancel the insurance policy from the date of issuance of communication and not from the date the cheque was issued which got bounced. The matter reached this Court from the above judgment of the High Court. The Court referred to Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act, Sections 25, 51,52,54 and 65 of the Indian Contract Act and the decisions of this Court in Inderjit Kaur and Rula and held (at pages 156 and 157): (of SCC): (at p. 1200 of AIR) as under: 17 "17. In a contract of insurance when the insured gives a cheque towards payment of premium or part of the premium, such a contract consists of reciprocal promise. The drawer of the cheque promises the insurer that the cheque, on presentation, would yield the amount in cash. It cannot be forgotten that a cheque is a bill of exchange drawn on a specified banker. A bill of exchange is an instrument in writing containing an unconditional order directing a certain person to pay a certain sum of money to a certain person. It involves a promise that such money would be paid. 18. Thus, when the insured fails to pay the premium promised, or when the cheque issued by him towards the premium is returned dishonoured by the bank concerned the insurer need not perform his part of the promise. The corollary is that the insured cannot claim performance from the insurer in such a situation. 19. Under Section 25 of the Contract Act an agreement made without consideration is void. Section 65 of the Contract Act says that when a contract becomes void any person who has received any advantage under such contract is bound to restore it to the person from whom he received it. So, even if the insurer has disbursed the amount covered by the policy to the insured before the cheque was returned 18 dishonoured, the insurer is entitled to get the money back. 20. However, if the insured makes up the premium even after the cheque was dishonoured but before the date of accident it would be a different case as payment of consideration can be treated as paid in the order in which the nature of transaction required it. As such an event did not happen in this case, the Insurance Company is legally justified in refusing to pay the amount claimed by the respondents.” 17. From the aforementioned judgment, it is crystal clear that until and unless, cancellation of the insurance policy is informed to the owner of the vehicle, the vehicle will be held to be insured with the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability to pay the amount of compensation and on the date when the insurance policy was cancelled, then only the Insurance company would be exonerated from its liability and it would be fastened upon the owner of the vehicle. 18. Considering the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid matter, it is quite vivid on the date of accident, the vehicle was duly insured. Insurance policy had never been cancelled on the date of accident and it was cancelled only on 27.04.2015, as such, on the date of accident, the insurance policy was effective. In the considered opinion of 19 this Court, the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the amount of compensation. 19. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company being MAC No.570/2018 fails and it is accordingly dismissed. 20. Now, this Court shall deal with the appeal filed by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle being MAC No.453/2018. 21. As this Court has already discussed earlier that on the date and time of accident, offending vehicle was duly insured, as such, the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation was only on the Insurance Company, the appeal filed on behalf of the driver and owner of the offending vehicle is accordingly required to be allowed. The finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal, fastening the liability upon owner and driver of the offending vehicle is hereby set aside. The Insurance Company is held liable to pay the amount of compensation holding that on the date of accident, insurance policy was effective and it was not cancelled on that day. 22. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle being MAC No.453/2018 is hereby allowed. 23. Now the question for enhancement of compensation in the appeal filed by the claimants is required to be taken into consideration. 24. Learned counsel for the claimants in MAC No.1688/2017 submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the 20 lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. He further submits that the claimants have pleaded the income of the deceased as Rs.17,000/- per month, but the learned Claims Tribunal has only assessed the notional income of the deceased as Rs.15,900/- per month and total compensation of Rs.15,71,275/- has been awarded including the amount of other conventional heads of Rs.1,00,000/-. It has been contended that learned Claims Tribunal has failed to award the proper amount of compensation under the various heads and therefore, the award deserves to be altered in order to fulfill the needs of the claimants. It has been further contended that learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier 13, as such, the appeal filed by the claimants be allowed and the amount be enhanced. 25. The legal position now stands settled by virtue of the law declared by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transportation Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121. It stands affirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). Even though, it has been observed by the Claims Tribunal that the deceased was 25 years of age, there is no conclusive proof with regard to the age. Based on the available materials, the Court reckon the same as 25 years as contended by the claimants. In the instant case, since the accident occurred was in the year 2015, and the Tribunal has reckoned the income of deceased as Rs.1,50,900/- per annum while doing job at “Yes Bank”. Going by the rulings rendered by the Apex Court as cited 21 above, in the case of persons of less than 40 years of age with fixed income, 50% of the income has to be added for fixing the future prospect, which comes to Rs.2,26,350/-. After deducting ½ (50%) towards personal and living expenses, annual income of deceased comes to Rs.1,13,175/-. 26. Learned Claims Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 13, which is erroneous and in the present case, the multiplier should be 18 in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (supra). After applying the multiplier of 18, the loss of income of deceased comes to Rs.20,37,150/-. 27. The scope of 'consortium' has been subsequently explained by the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Others, (2018) 18 SCC 130. It can be of three types; Parental consortium (payable to children because of the death of parents); Spousal consortium (payable to the surviving spouse because of the death of the partner) and Filial consortium (payable to the parents because of the death of children). This being the position, the claimants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- towards loss of consortium. Further, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is payable towards funeral expenses in view of the law declared in Pranay Sethi (supra). As per the decision rendered in Pranay Sethi (supra), the Appellants/Claimants are also entitled to get a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. 22 28. Further, 10% enhancement in every three years is also required to be given in respect of loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium. 29. On the basis of above recalculation, the claimants are entitled for compensation in the following manner:- Sl. No. 1. Head Calculation Awarded amount Income of deceased @ Rs.1,50,900/- per annum Rs.1,50,900/- 2. 50% of (1) above to be added as future prospects 1,50,900 75,450 Rs.2,26,350/- + = 3. 1/2 of (2) deducted personal the as expenses of deceased 2,26,350 / 2 = Rs.1,13,175/- 4. Compensation after 18 of multiplier applied 5. Towards estate loss of 6. Towards loss of consortium to all the three claimants @ Rs. 40,000/- 7. Funeral Expenses 1,13,175 x 18 Rs.20,37,150/- 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years 40,000 + 8,000 = 48,000/- with increase of 10% in every three years 15,000 + 3,000 with increase of 10% in every three years Total Compensation Awarded Rs.18,000/- Rs.1,44,000/- Rs.18,000/- Rs.22,17,150/- 23 30. In the said circumstance, the total compensation comes to Rs.22,17,150/-. After deducting Rs.15,71,275/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.6,45,875/-. 31. From the above discussions, the appeal filed by the claimants being MAC No.1688/2017 is allowed in part. The claimants shall be entitled to Rs.6,45,875/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 32.
Decision
In the result :- (i) MAC No.570/2018 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed being devoid of merits. (ii) MAC No.1688/2017 filed by the claimants is allowed in part. (iii) MAC No.453/2018 filed by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle is hereby allowed. 33. As this Court is of the opinion that the Insurance Company is held liable to satisfy the amount of compensation, the Insurance Company is directed to pay the entire amount of compensation to the claimants as modified by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. 34. Record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Sd/- Judge Yogesh