Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.08.19 17:03:14 +0530 2025:CGHC:41541 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1094 of 2022 1- Smt. Julekha Bano (Banu), W/o. Jaan Khan, Aged About 42 Years, Permanent R/o. Village Chura, Tahsil And District – Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh, R/o. Durga Chowk, Santoshi Nagar, Thana – Tikrapara, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2- Jaan Khan, S/o. Late Chand Khan, Aged About 43 Years, Permanent R/o. Village Chura, Tahsil And District - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh, R/o. Durga Chowk, Santoshi Nagar, Thana – Tikrapara, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Afsal Khan @ Afjal Khan, S/o. Late Chand Khan, Aged About
Legal Reasoning
15 Years, Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Julekha Bano, Appellant No.1, Permanent R/o. Village Chura, Tahsil And District – Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh, R/o. Durga Chowk, Santoshi Nagar, Thana – Tikrapara, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Roman Singh, S/o. Bhushan Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o. R.B.H. Colony Jagriti Nagar Fafadih, Thana Ganj Raipur, 2 Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.G.04/F.B./6585) 2 - Maiyur Manihar, S/o. Late Yashvant Manihar, R/o. Gobra Nawapara, Ward No. 1, Kholipara, Gobra Nawapara, Tahsil And Thana Gobra Nawapara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.G.04/F.B./6585). 3 - The Oriental General Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No. 03, R.K. Plaza Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.G.04/F.B./6585) ….. Respondents For Appellants For Respondent No.3 : : Mr. A.L.Singroul, Advocate Mr. P.K.Tulsyan, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 18.08.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 20.07.2022 passed by learned Eighth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No.687/2021, whereby an amount of Rs. 12,89,360/- has 3 been awarded as compensation for the death of Sohel Khan, aged about 20 years, at the time of incident. 2. Appellants, who are mother, father & brother of the deceased Sohel Khan filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for brevity “Claims Tribunal”) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 33,50,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident, deceased Sohel Khan was aged about 20 years and was a sole bread earner of the family and on account of his untimely death in the accident, the appellants have suffered economical and psychological difficulties. 3. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Sohel Khan died in the accident arising out of rash & negligent driving of the offending vehicle driven by the respondent No.1, owned by the respondent No.2 and insured by the respondent No.3. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved and after calculating the amount of compensation, the learned Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 12,89,360/- as total compensation with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim application. 4 4. In this appeal, only short point is involved whether the appellant No.3 i.e. brother of the deceased was entitled for an amount of consortium. 5. Mr. A.L.Singroul, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that the brother of the deceased being sibling is also entitled for compensation. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ajmer Kaur & Others v. Mohinder Singh & Others 1 . 6. Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, learned counsel for the insurance company/respondent No.3 would support the impugned award and submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of compensation and the brother of deceased i.e. claimant No.3 is not entitled for an amount of compensation under the head of consortium and, as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Others 2 . 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records minutely. 1 2 SLP(C) No.11469 of 2022 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 8. Relying upon the decision in the matter of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram & Others (supra), the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur & Others 3 held that in Magma General (supra), this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium as well as filial consortium. The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate conventional head. Filial consortium has already been granted in this matter and in that view of the matter, the appeal is meritless in respect of the submission that the brother of the deceased is also entitled for loss of consortium. 9. However, with regard to enhancement of the amount of compensation, it is submitted by Mr. A.L.Singroul, learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in assessing income of deceased as Rs.7,800/- per month, which should be Rs.9,000/- per month, as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, which was not opposed by Mr. P.K.Tulsyan, learned counsel for the insurance company/respondent No.3. 3 AIR 2020 SC 3076 6 10. The Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased Sohel Khan to be Rs.7,800/- per month, however, in the opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh for unskilled labour, the monthly income of the deceased should be Rs.9,000/- per month, which comes to Rs. 1,08,000/- per annum. 11. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi 4, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors5 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) , this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court Income as per minimum wages Rs. 7,800 x 12 = Rs. 93,600/- Rs. 9,000 x 12 = Rs. 1,08,000/- Add 40% future prospects Rs. 93,600 + 37,440 =Rs. 1,31,040 Rs. 1,08,000 + 43,200 = Rs. 1,51,200/- Rs.1,31,040 – 65,520 = Rs.65,520/- Rs. 1,51,200 – 75,600 = Rs.75,600/- Rs. 65,520 x 18 = Rs. 75,600 x 18 = Rs.11,79,360/- Rs. 13,60,800/- Rs. 80,000/- Rs. 80,000/- 1/2 deduction towards personal expenses Compensation after multiplier of 18 is applied Loss of filial consortium 4 5