• Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office No. 01, Jail Road, Madina v. 1
Case Details
1 / 16 2025:CGHC:25652 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 720 of 2019 • Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office No. 01, Jail Road, Madina Manzil, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of Dumpher Number C.G. 04- J /5118) --- Appellant/Non-applicant No. 3 versus 1. Smt. Radhika Bai Kosle W/o Bholaram Kosle Aged About 34 Years Cast - Satnami 2. Ku. Ageshwari D/o Bholaram Kosle, Aged About 19 Years Cast - Satnami 3. Okesh S/o Bholaram Kosle, Aged About 14 Years Cast – Satnami, Minor, Through Guardian Mother Smt. Radhika Kosle, W/o Bholaram Kosle. 4. Ku. Bhumika D/o Bholaram Kosle, Aged About 9 Years Cast - Satnami, Minor, Through Guardian Mother Smt. Radhika Kosle, W/o Bholaram Kosle All are R/o Village Sakri, Thana - Kharora, Tehsil - Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. -----Applicants No. 1 to 4/ Claimants 5. Roshan Kumar Yadav S/o Pawan Kumar Yadav Aged About 22 Years R/o Village - Pirda, Post - Koransi, Thana - Kharora, Tehsil - Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Driver of Vehicle Tractor No. C.G. 04/DB/6479 And Trolly No. C.G. 04 - D/6347) -----Non-applicant No. 1 6. Dukalu Ram S/o Dhanwa Ram Gayakwad Aged About 50 Years Cast - Satnami, R/o Village - Pirda, Post - Koransi, Thana- Kharora, Tehsil - Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner of Vehicle Tractor No. C.G. 04/DB/6479 And Trolly No. C.G. 04-D/6347) -----Non-applicant No. 2 --- Respondents WITH MAC No. 1128 of 2019 1. Smt. Radhika Bai Kosle W/o Bhola Ram Kosle Aged About 34 Years 2. Kumari Ageshwari D/o Bhola Ram Kosle Aged About 19 Years Caste - Satnami PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 16 3. Okesh S/o Bhola Ram Kosle Aged About 14 Years Caste - Satnami, Minor Mother Smt. Radhika, Kosle, W/o Bhola Ram Kosley 4. Kumari Bhumika D/o Bhola Ram Kosle Aged About 9 Years Caste - Satnami, Minor Mother Smt. Radhika, Kosle, W/o Bhola Ram Kosley, All are R/o Village Sakri, Police Station Kharora, Tahsil Aarang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Claimants), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Appellants/claimants Versus 1. Roshan Kumar Yadav D/o Pawan Kumar Yadav Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Pirda, Post Koransi, Police Station Kharora, Tahsil Aarang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Dukalu Ram S/o Dhanwa Ram Gayakwad Aged About 50 Years Caste - Satnami, R/o Village Pirda, Post Koransi, Police Station Kharora, Tahsil Aarang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Manager The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Division Office No. 1, Jail Road, Madina Manzil, Kachhari Chowk, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) ____________________________________________________________ MAC No. 720 of 2019
Legal Reasoning
For Appellant-Insu. Co. : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate with Ms. Prerna Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Mrs. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate For Respondent No. 5 & 6 : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate MAC No. 1128 of 2019 For Appellants-Claimants : Mrs. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate with Ms. Prerna Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 19/06/2025 1. Both the appeals are filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”). MAC No. 720/2019 has been filed by the non- applicant No. 3-insurance company challenging, fastening of liability upon it and MAC No. 1128/2019 has been filed by appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded, vide award dated 3 / 16 06.12.2018 passed by Learned Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 292/2015, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed by claimants under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 8,07,299/- as compensation in a death case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of these appeal are that on 23.01.2015 at 7.30 p.m., when Bholaram Kosle was standing beside an electricity pole near the house of Chhavi Dhivar at Gandhi Chowk, village Sakri, at that time non-applicant no. 1- Roshan Yadav/ driver of tractor no. CG-04/DB/6479 and trolley no. CG-04-D/6347 (hereinafter referred to as “offending tractor”), while driving the offending tractor rashly and negligently, caused an accident. In the accident, Bholaram suffered grievous internal injuries over his head, chest, jaw, nose and forehead due to which he became unconscious. He was immediately taken to Shri Balaji Hospital, Raipur in Sanjeevani 108 ambulance, where he was admitted and treated. During treatment, Bholaram Kosle died on 24.01.2015 in Hospital at Raipur due to serious traumatic injuries caused in the accident. Accident was reported, based on which Crime No. 21/15 was registered in Police Station Kharora against non-applicant no. 1 for alleged offences under Sections 279, 337, 304A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Claimants who are widow and children of the deceased Bholaram Kosle filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking ₹ 25,00,000/- as compensation pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased Bholaram was 40-year-old healthy man. He was the sole breadwinner of his family. At the time of the accident, the deceased was doing business of selling vegetables and was earning ₹ 12,000/- per month. 4. Respondents No. 5 & 6/ non-applicants No. 1 and 2/ driver and owner submitted reply to the claim application, denying all the adverse pleadings 4 / 16 made therein. It was further pleaded that on the date of the accident deceased himself was negligent, as he was walking on middle of the road. Non-applicant No. 1 was having a valid and effective driving license to drive the offending tractor and the said vehicle was being used for agricultural work, at the time of accident. The offending tractor was insured with non- applicant No. 3. 5. Appellant/ Non-applicant No. 3-Insurance Company in MAC No. 720 of 2019 submitted reply, denying all the adverse pleadings made therein. It was further pleaded that the owner of the offending tractor had got the insurance policy issued by suppressing the essential facts and therefore, insurance company had cancelled the policy from the date of its issuance. It was further pleaded that the insurance policy number 191100/31/2015/17958 of offending tractor No. CG-04-DB-6347 has been cancelled under Rule No. 4 of the policy with effect from 21.01.2015 and the premium amount of ₹ 5,162/- has been returned through cheque number 32847 dated 12.06.2015. In the reply submitted by appellant/ non-applicant No.3, it is further stated that according to the First Information Report, the accident occurred with vehicle number CG 04 DR 6479 and the owner / driver of the said vehicle and the insurance company have not been made parties in the claim application. Non-applicant No. 1 did not even have a licence to drive a vehicle. As the trolley was being attached to the tractor, its category changes and comes under the category of transport vehicle. Non-applicant No. 1 was not possessing licence to drive such a vehicle. In such a situation, there was breach of policy conditions. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, recorded a finding that the deceased Bholaram died because of grievous injuries suffered by him in an accident due to rash and negligent driving of tractor bearing No. CG04 DB 5 / 16 6479 & Trolley No. CG 04 D 6347 by Respondent No. 5/ Non-applicant No. 1. Breach of policy conditions was not found to be proved, calculated the amount and awarded compensation of ₹ 8,07,299/-. 7. The impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal was put to challenge by the appellant-insurance company as also applicants-claimants by way of filing these separate appeals. The appellant-Insurance Company has raised a ground that the Claims Tribunal erred in fastening liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the insurance company and the applicants- claimants have raised the ground that compensation awarded is less in the facts of the case. 8. Learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company submits that the impugned award is challenged by the insurance company on the ground that the Claims Tribunal erred in fastening the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the insurance company overlooking the pleadings made in reply that the owner of offending tractor has deposited the amount of premium and obtained policy suppressing the fact that prior to the date of depositing the premium, the vehicle was involved in the accident. The amount towards premium was deposited on 06.02.2015 whereas the vehicle met with an accident on 23.01.2015. As the amount of premium was deposited subsequent to the date of accident and the policy was issued on 06.02.2015, on the date of depositing of premium no risk can be covered of accident which occurred on 23.01.2015, more so when the owner of the offending tractor has played fraud with the company. Regarding the policy issued by the company, Ext. D-5, he submitted that the date of issuance of policy is clearly mention as 06.02.2015. Regarding Ext. D-7, receipt, it is argued that the amount of premium was collected in the office of insurance company only on 06.02.2015. He also pointed out that after getting the knowledge of fraud played by the owner of offending tractor, the amount of 6 / 16 premium was returned to the owner of offending tractor through cheque on 12.06.2015 vide Ext. D-11C, insurance policy was cancelled and company has also lodged a report in this regard with the concerned police station. He contended that as the amount of premium was deposited for the offending tractor involved in the accident subsequent to the date of accident, the risk on the date of accident prior to the deposit of amount under the policy was not covered. In support of his contention, he referred the provisions under Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938 and the decision of High Court of Madras in case of Kothai and ors. vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2003 ACJ 991. He also submits that the insurance Company has filed an application under Order 11 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of CPC before the Claims Tribunal seeking direction to the owner of the offending tractor to submit the receipt, if any, of depositing the amount prior to the date of accident, which remain undecided. 9. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant-Insurance company and would submit that the Claims Tribunal considering the fact that the policy was issued, covering the risk from 21.01.2015 till 20.01.2016, whereas the accident happened on 23.01.2015 and hence, risk of offending tractor was covered under the policy. She also submits that the claimants have further filed separate appeal bearing MAC No. 1128 of 2019 seeking enhancement of amount of compensation. 10. Mr. A.L. Singroul, learned counsel for Respondents No. 5 & 6/ non-applicants No. 1 & 2 also opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant- Insurance Company and would submit that the Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of evidence and pleadings brought on record justified in recording a finding that under the policy risk was covered from 21.01.2015 till 20.01.2016 and the date of accident was subsequent to the effective date of 7 / 16 policy. Hence, appellant-Insurance Company will not be permitted to say that the risk under the policy on the date of accident was not covered. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 12. The owner and driver of the offending offending tractor have submitted reply to the claim application on 16.12.2015. In para-7 of the reply, it is specifically pleaded that on the date of accident driver was possessed with a valid and effective driving licence, the offending offending tractor was being used for agriculture purposes and on the date of accident the offending vehicle was being insured with insurance company and risk under the policy was covered from 21.01.2015 till 20.01.2016. 13. Insurance Company submitted its reply to the claim application on 13.04.2016, pleading therein that benefit of the policy can be enjoyed by the insured only after making payment of premium of policy under Section 64VB of the Insurance Act. The amount of premium was deposited on 06.02.2015 and the policy was issued on the same day. However, prior to the date of issuance of policy, the vehicle met with an accident on 23.01.2015. The owner of the offending offending tractor has suppressed the material fact of involvement of vehicle in the accident at the time of obtaining insurance policy of offending offending tractor on 06.02.2015. Insured was informed of cancellation of the insurance policy vide letter dated 12.06.2015 and the amount of policy was also returned back through cheque No. 32847. Copy of money receipt is filed as Ext. D-7. Perusal of the same would show that it bears office code & name, collection date as 06.02.2015 at about 16:57 hours and name of person from whom the amount of premium was received is also mentioned as Dev Kumar Nishad. Admittedly, Dev Kumar Nishad is not a registered owner of the vehicle. The insurance company in its pleadings has not specified as to who is Dev Kumar Nishad nor in the evidence it has 8 / 16 been stated by the witness NAW-3-2, whereas the whole case as projected by the appellant-Insurance company is that it is the owner of the offending offending tractor had deposited the amount of premium in the office after happening of accident, suppressing the fact. 14. Copy of policy is also filed as Ext. D-5. Perusal of copy of policy would show that it bears the Cover Note No. 19110083178 and its date and time is also mentioned as 20.01.2015 at 14:45 hours. Prior to issuance of policy, the appellant-Insurance Company has already issued cover note in favour of offending offending tractor in the name of insured Dukalu Ram. The witness examined on behalf of Insurance Company as NAW-3-2, Ritesh Rahangdale, who is Administrative Officer of the Oriental Insurance Company, Zonal Division Office, Raipur, in his evidence, had admitted in paragraph 14 that as soon as cheque or cash is received by the agent or broker, cover note is to be issued. 15. From the aforementioned evidence of Administrative Officer of the Oriental Insurance Company, it is appearing that the cover note is issued only after receipt of cash amount or the cheque by agent or broker who acts on behalf of Insurance Company. From the evidence of NW-3-2 and the contents of insurance policy, Ext. D-5, it can be presumed that the cover note is issued by the agent or broker of the company after receiving premium amount on 20.01.2015 ie. prior to the date of accident. 16. Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938 is extracted below for ready reference: “64VB. No risk to be assumed unless premium is received in advance. (1) No insurer shall assume any risk in India in respect of any insurance business on which premium is not ordinarily payable outside India unless and until the premium payable is received by him or is guaranteed to be paid by such person in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed or unless and until deposit of 9 / 16 such amount as may be prescribed, is made in advance in the prescribed manner. (2) For the purposes of this section, in the case of risks for which premium can be ascertained in advance, the risk may be assumed not earlier than the date on which the premium has been paid in cash or by cheque to the insurer. Explanation. --Where the premium is tendered by postal money order or cheque sent by post, the risk may be assumed on the date on which the money order is booked or the cheque is posted, as the case may be. (3) Any refund of premium which may become due to an insured on account of the cancellation of a policy or alteration in its terms and conditions or otherwise shall be paid by the insurer directly to the insured by a crossed or order cheque or by postal money order and a proper receipt shall be obtained by the insurer from the insured, and such refund shall in no case be credited to the account of the agent. (4) Where an insurance agent collects a premium on a policy of insurance on behalf of an insurer, he shall deposit with, or dispatch by post to, the insurer, the premium so collected in full without deduction of his commission within twenty-four hours of the collection excluding bank and postal holidays. (5) The Central Government may, by rules, relax the requirements of sub-section (1) in respect of particular categories in insurance policies. 1[(6) The Authority may, from time to time, specify, by the regulations made by it, the manner of receipt of premium by the insurer.] 17. The explanation clause under Section 64 VB of the Insurance Act, 1938 envisages that when premium is tendered by postal money order or cheque sent by post, the risk may be assumed on the date money order is booked or cheque is posted. 18. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur, reported in (1998) 1 SCC 371 has held 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 receiving the premium therefor. By reason of the provisions of Sections 147(5) and 149(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 10 / 16 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. 19. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Abhaysing Pratapsing Waghela reported in (2008) 9 SCC 133 has held as under: “17. Indisputably, the first respondent is a third party in relation to the contract of insurance which had been entered into by and between the appellant and the owner of the vehicle in question. We have noticed hereinbefore that a document was produced before the Tribunal. Even according to the appellant, although it was only a Motor Input Advice-cum-Receipt, it contained Cover Note No. 279106. We, therefore, have to suppose that a cover note had, in fact, been issued. If a cover note had been issued which in terms of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 145 of the Act would come within the purview of definition of certificate of insurance; it would also come within the purview of the definition of insurance policy. If a cover note is issued, it remains valid till it is cancelled. Indisputably, the insurance policy was cancelled only after the accident took place. A finding of fact, therefore, has been arrived at that prior to the deposit of the premium of insurance in cash by the owner of the vehicle, the cover note was not cancelled. 18. It is in the aforementioned situation, we are of the opinion, that the judgment of the High Court cannot be faulted. No doubt, a contract of insurance is to be governed by the terms thereof, but a distinction must be borne in mind between a contract of insurance which has been entered into for the purpose of giving effect to the object and purport of the statute and one which provides for reimbursement of the liability of 11 / 16 the owner of the vehicle strictly in terms thereof. In that limited sense, a contract of insurance entered into for the purpose of covering a third-party risk would not be purely contractual. We may place on record that an ordinary contract of insurance does not have a statutory flavour. The Act merely imposes an obligation on the part of the insurance company to reimburse the claimant both in terms of the Act as also the contract. So far as the liability of the insurance company which comes within the purview of Sections 146 and 147 is concerned, the same subserves a constitutional goal, namely, social justice. A contract of insurance covering the third-party risk must, therefore, be viewed differently vis-à-vis a contract of insurance qua contract. 20. In the aforementioned facts of the case, where the cover note was issued on 20.01.2015, the amount said to be deposited on 06.02.2015, whereas the policy was issued on 06.02.2015 showing the period of insurance of the vehicle from mid night of 21.01.2015 to mid night of 20.01.2016 which shows that on the date of accident based on the contents of cover note, risk for the period as mentioned therein was covered. The insurance Company has not brought on record copy of cover note based on which the insurance policy is issued. Further more, the name of person who has deposited the amount is Dev Kumar Nishad, who is he, is not clarified by the insurance company. Had the insurance company placed copy of the cover note with regard to person who has accepted the money, his status could have been ascertained. The important evidence has not been brought on record by the Insurance Company. 21. Provision under Section 145 of the Act of the Act of 1988 clearly envisages that the certificate of insurance includes a cover note complying with such requirement as may be prescribed. It is not the case of the appellant- insurance company that the cover note/ insurance certificate was cancelled or policy was not issued within the time/ life of the cover note. 12 / 16 22. In the facts of the case and evidence of Administrative Officer that, cover note is issued only after accepting premium by cheque or cash and cover note is issued prior to the date of accident, in the opinion of this Court, risk is assumed from 20.01.2015, whereas the accident occurred on 23.01.2015. 23. From the aforementioned material, evidence, documentary and oral, it can safely be presumed that the cover note was issued on 20.01.2015 only after accepting the premium and based on the cover note the policy was issued for the period from 21.01.2015 to 20.01.2016. If for any reason the agent or broker of the company has deposited the premium collected by him at later point of time, the insured who has paid the premium to the authorized person within time could not be made to suffer, more so when in the facts of the case where the cover note is issued by the company which is not challenged to be a forged and fabricated cover note. The Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability under the cover note and insurance policy for covering third party risk. The policy pursuant to cover note is issued within the prescribed period of 30 days. Policy was cancelled after accident. There is no argument that the appellant-insurance company cancelled the cover note. 24. The decision relied upon by the counsel for appellant-insurance company in case of Kothai (supra) is distinguishable on facts. In that case as per facts of the case, cover note was issued without payment of premium, cheque was issued after accident and the company has also cancelled cover note. In the case at hand Administrative Officer deposed that cover note is to be issued only when premium is paid though cash or cheque. 25. For the foregoing discussion and aforementioned facts of the case, in particular considering that the insurance company has not brought on record copy of cover note and amount was deposited not by the insured but by some other person namely Shri Dev Kumar Nishad, in the considered opinion of this Court, the appellant-Insurance Company cannot be permitted to say 13 / 16 that the amount was received against the policy on 06.02.2015, ie. after the date of accident. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the appeal MAC No. 720 of 2019 filed by appellant-Insurance Company, it is accordingly dismissed. 26. Now this court deals with MAC No. 1128 of 2019 filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation. 27. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that the Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation. Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as ₹ 5,000/- per month only, overlooking the pleadings made in the claim application with respect to nature of occupation and income as vegetable vendor earning ₹ 12,000/- per month. She also submits that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded the amount towards loss of future prospects in the facts of the case where the deceased on the date of accident was 45 years of age, as assessed by the Claims Tribunal, has awarded meager sum of compensation under the head of other conventional heads. 28. Learned counsel for respective respondents oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that the amount of compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper in the facts of the case, and it does not call for any interference. It is also pointed out that the amount of compensation awarded under the head of loss of consortium is excessive. 29. Perusal of record would show that except the pleadings made in the claim application with respect to nature of occupation and the income of deceased as ₹ 12,000/- per month and the self statement of claimant, AW-1, no other documentary evidence or other admissible piece of evidence has been brought on record. 14 / 16 30. In the aforementioned facts of the case, learned Claims Tribunal has correctly taken step to assess income of deceased on notional basis. For assessing the income on notional basis, Tribunals or the courts are required to keep in mind certain factors like age of deceased, date of accident, price index, cost of living, wage structure within the area where the deceased was residing and working, and can also take help of minimum wages as fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. In the case at hand, there is no material to suggest about the wages prevailing within the area ie. Aarang tahsil, District Raipur and therefore I find it appropriate to assess the income of deceased taking help of minimum wages fixed by the competent authority during that period. Aarang Tahsil is within the Raipur zone which is placed in Zone-A. The date of accident is 23.01.2015 and therefore according to the minimum wages fixed during that period, the income of the deceased can be assessed as ₹ 5,517/- per month as notified by the competent authority. It is ordered accordingly. 31. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects. As the deceased on the date of accident held to be 45 years based on the post mortem report, according the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, there shall be addition of 25% of the assessed income to the income of deceased for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. It is ordered accordingly. Claims Tribunal has correctly applied deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses and has applied the multiplier of 14 which is also in consonance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC. Claims Tribunal has awarded sum of ₹ 50,000/- towards loss of consortium to appellant No. 1 and ₹ 10,000/- each to appellants No. 2 to 4 who are children of the deceased. 15 / 16 ₹ 10,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses and ₹ 20,000/- towards pain and suffering. The aforesaid amount awarded under other conventional heads is not in accordance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Company vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhuru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. Accordingly, the compensation under the head of loss of consortium to be awarded under loss of spousal consortium of ₹ 40,000/- to appellant No. 1, ₹ 40,000/- each towards loss of parental consortium to appellants No. 2 to 4. It is ordered accordingly. Appellants-claimants will further be entitled for ₹ 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and ₹ 15,000/- towards loss of estate. Apart from the aforementioned amount of compensation, claimants will further be entitled for ₹ 57,299/- towards medical expenses as already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 32. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellants-claimants requires recomputation, which is as under. 33. The monthly income of deceased is taken as ₹ 5,517/- ie., yearly income as ₹ 66,204/-. Upon adding 25% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects, yearly income of deceased on the date of accident will come to ₹ ₹ 82,755/- . After deducting 1/4 towards personal and living expenses, annual loss of dependency will come to ₹ 62,066/-. Upon applying multiplier of 14, total loss of dependency will come to ₹ 8,68,924/-. Particulars A) Annual Loss of income/ dependency = Compensation ₹ 8,68,924/- ₹ 66,204/- B) Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 25% (₹ 66,204 x 125% = ₹ 82,755) C) Deduction of 1/4 towards personal and living expenses (₹ 82,755 x 1/4= ₹ 20,689); ₹ 82,755 - ₹ 20,689 = ₹ 62,066/- D) Multiplier of 14 16 / 16 ₹ 62,066 x 14 = ₹ 8,68,924/- Loss of Spousal Consortium to Appellant No. 1 ₹ 40,000/- Loss of Parental Consortium to Appellant No. 2 ₹ 1,20,000/- to 4 (₹ 40,000 each) Loss of estate Funeral Expenses Medical Expenses Total ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 57,299/- ₹ 11,16,223/- 34. Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 11,16,233/- instead of ₹ 8,07,299/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 9% 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. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. It is made clear that the appellants-claimants will not be entitled for the interest for the delayed period of 110 days in filing of appeal. 35.
Decision
In the result, appeal filed by claimant in MAC No. 1128 of 2019 is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein- above. The appeal filed by Insurance Company MAC No. 720 of 2019 is dismissed. pwn Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge