Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh v. 1
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:33155 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 688 of 2019 1 - United India Insurance Company Limited By Divisional Manager,united India Insurance Company Limited, Kutchery Chowk Jail Road Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh Through Authorized Sighnatory United India Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office 2nd Floor Guru Kripa Towers Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Sanjoga Koushle W/o Late Arun Kumar Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Sendari Post Office Kurda District Bemetara Chhattisgarh Present Address Sanjay Nagar, Birgaon Police Station Urla District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Minor Gournit Koushle S/o Late Arun Kumar Koushle Aged About 8 Years Through Guardian Mother Smt. Sanjoga Koushle R/o Village Sendari Post Office Kurda District Bemetara Chhattisgarh Present Address Sanjay Nagar, Birgaon Police Station Urla District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Satyawati Alias Satya Koushle W/o Janak Ram Koshle Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Sendari Post Office Kurda District Bemetara Chhattisgarh Present Address Sanjay Nagar, Birgaon Police Station Urla District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sushma Koshle D/o Late Janak Ram Koshle Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Sendari Post Office Kurda District Bemetara Chhattisgarh Present Address Sanjay Nagar, Birgaon Police Station Urla District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 5 - Shital Prasad Ahir S/o Shri Mani Ram Agir Aged About 37 Years R/o Siddhanath Chhapar Vijay Nagar Police Station Rampur District Jabalpur Mahdya Pradesh . (Driver Of The Truck No. M.P. 20 Hb 7228), District : Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh 6 - Nilam Kumar Mulchamdani S/o Leelaram R/o C/o Sanjay Kirana Stores South Civil Line Jabalpur, Police Station And District Jabalpur Madhya Pradesh ( Owner Of The Truck No. M.P. 20 Hb 7228, District : Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh --- Respondents MAC No. 2041 of 2019
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Sanjoga Koshle W/o Late Arun Kumar Koshle Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Sendri, Post Office Kurda, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Sanjay Nagar Beergaon, Police Station Urla, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Gournit Koshle Aged About 8 Months, S/o Late Arun Kumar Koshle, Minor, Through Mother And Natural Guardian (Appellant No. 1), R/o Village Sendri, Post Office Kurda, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Sanjay Nagar Beergaon, Police Station Urla, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Satyawati @ Satya Koshle W/o Late Janakram Koshle Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Sendri, Post Office Kurda, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Sanjay Nagar Beergaon, Police Station Urla, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sushma Koshle D/o Late Janakram Koshle Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Sendri, Post Office Kurda, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Sanjay Nagar Beergaon, Police Station Urla, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Sheetal Prasad Ahir S/o Maniram Ahir Aged About 37 Years R/o Siddhanath Chapar Vijay Nagar, Police Station Rampur, District - Jabalpur, Madhyapradesh, (Driver Of Truck No. M.P. 29 Hb-7228), District : Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh 2 - Neelam Kumar Moolchandani S/o Leelaram Moolchandani R/o Through Sanjay Kirana Stores, South Civil Line Jabalpur, Police Station And District - Jabalpur, 3 Madhyapradesh. (Owner Of Truck No. M.P. 29, Hb - 7228), District : Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh 3 - The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through - Divisional Manager, The United India Co. Ltd. Kachahari Chowk Jail Road, Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Truck No. M.P. 29 Hb 7228), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents MAC No. 688/2019 For Appellant : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate along with Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocate For Respondents No. : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate along with Mr. 1 to 4 Satyendra Shriwas, Advocate MAC No. 2041/2019 For Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate along with Mr. For Respondents No. : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate along with Mr. Abhishek Satyendra Shriwas, Advocate 1 & 2 Mishra, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge 14/07/2025 Order On Board 1. As both the appeals are arising out of common award, they are being
Decision
heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Appellant/Insurance Company in MAC No. 688/2019 has challenged the liability fastened upon it to pay the amount of compensation of Rs. 24,34,040/- awarded by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District – Raipur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 17.10.2018 in Claim Case No. 125/2018. 3. Appellants-Claimants in MAC No. 2041/2019 have sought enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 4. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 07.02.2017 at around 06:30 P.M., when Arun Kumar Koshle (since deceased) was returning from Balodabazar on his motorcycle bearing registration no. CG 22 6191 4 and reached near Village Kamta, at that time, one Truck bearing registration no. MP 20 HB 7228 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) driven by the Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, stopped the truck all of a sudden, due to which, Arun Koshle dashed with the offending truck from its back. In the said accident, he suffered serious injuries and died on spot. Subsequent to the said accident, F.I.R. was lodged in concerned police station against the Respondent No. 1(driver). 5. Appellant/claimant filed a claim application before the learned Claims Tribunal pleading therein that at the time of accident, deceased was aged about 30 years, employed on the post of Assistant Grade – III in Health Department, State of Chhattisgarh and was earning Rs. 23,800 per month. Due to the accident caused by the offending vehicle, claimants/applicants have suffered mental and financial loss as they lost their breadwinner and have claimed compensation amounting to Rs. 83,52,800/- from the non-applicants. 6. Non-Applicants No. 1 & 2, despite service of notice, did not appear before the Tribunal, therefore, they were proceeded ex parte. 7. Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company also filed separate reply and took a stand that on the date of accident, offending Truck was parked on the side of road and deceased due to his own negligence dashed with the Truck from behind and died. Further, it pleaded that insurer of the motorcycle of the deceased is not impleaded as party non- applicant in claim application. On the date of accident, Non-applicant No. 1 was not having valid and effective driving license, there was no permit and fitness of the offending vehicle and therefore, the Non- applicant No. 3 will not be liable to pay the amount of compensation. 5 8. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the facts and evidence brought on record held that the death of deceased was a result of motor accidental injuries suffered by him, breach of policy conditions not found proved and awarded Rs. 24,34,040/- to the claimants as compensation. 9. Mr. B.N. Nande, learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company in MAC No. 688/2019 submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in recording a finding that there was contributory negligence on the part of driver of the Respondent No. 5/Non-Applicant No. 1 i.e. driver of the truck. He contended that immediately after accident, police registered a criminal case under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the deceased, driver of the motorcycle. From registration of the F.I.R., it is apparent that the deceased met with an accident with the Stationary Truck due to his own negligence and therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal fell into error in recording a finding that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the truck also, to the extent of 50%. He next contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in applying deduction of 1/4th, considering the Claimant No. 4 (who is the major unmarried sister of the deceased) to be dependent upon him. 10. He further submits that in the facts of the case, widow, minor child and brother of the deceased would only be dependent members, which comes to 3 and therefore, appropriate deduction would be 1/3rd and not 1/4th. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ashalata Bhowmik & Ors. reported in (2018) 9 SCC 801. Learned Claims Tribunal has not made statutory 6 deduction of income tax as the income of the deceased was more than the tax exempted income. 11. Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Learned Counsel for the Respondents No. 1 to 4/Claimants opposes the submission made by the counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company and would submit that the submission of counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company that the accident is a result of sole negligence of the deceased (driver of motorcycle) is not correct. The claimants in the claim application have specifically pleaded that the truck while moving forward has applied the brake suddenly due to which deceased traveling on the motorcycle behind the truck, dashed with it. His contention is that before stopping the truck suddenly on middle of the road, no indication was given. 12. He next contended that the accident is a result of sole negligence of the driver of truck and hence, finding of Tribunal that deceased was contributory negligent is erroneous. Respondent/claimants have filed separate appeal challenging the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal of 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased driver of the motorcycle. He also contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded just amount of compensation to the claimants. While computing compensation not added 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 wherein, it has been observed that in case, the deceased was in permanent employment or the salary paid employee below 40 years of age, then, there shall be addition of 50% of the assessed income towards the future prospects. 13. In the case at hand, deceased was aged about 30 years only working 7 as Assistant Grade – III in Health Department and therefore, there shall be addition of 50% of the assessed income to compute total income. He next contended that the Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding sufficient amount of compensation under the head of loss of consortium, but have awarded Rs. 40,000/- only to the Applicant No. 1/widow of the deceased and not to the Appellant No. 2 (minor child), Appellant No. 3 (mother) and Appellant No. 4 (unmarried sister) dependent upon the income of the deceased. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Minu Rout and another v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and others reported in (2013) 10 SCC 695, Jiju Kuruvila and others v. Kunjujamma Mohan and others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 166 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram, reported in (2018) 8 SCC.. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the claim case. 15. So far as the submission of counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company that the accident was on account of negligence of the deceased (driver of motorcycle) is concerned, perusal of the claim application would show that the claimants in their claim application have specifically pleaded that the running truck suddenly stopped by its driver on middle of the road. Deceased while traveling on the motorcycle dashed with the truck from its back. The eye-witness to the accident Pawan Banjare is examined before the learned Claims Tribunal as AW – 2. In his evidence also, he narrated the same fact as pleaded in the claim application. 8 16. During course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Insurance Company has placed on record copy of the statement of one Dharmendra, recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. by the police during investigation, as Ex. D/22. In the said statement, the witness stated that the deceased had collided with a stationary truck parked on the roadside. However, except filing this document, no steps were taken by the appellant/Insurance Company to summon Dharmendra as a witness or to have his evidence recorded before the learned Claims Tribunal. 17. It is well settled that a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. during police investigation is not substantive evidence and cannot be relied upon, except for the limited purpose of contradiction in terms of the Evidence Act. Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 254, has categorically held that statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are inadmissible in evidence unless the author is examined and the statement is duly proved in accordance with law. Further, merely placing on record, copy of documents prepared by the police during investigation of crime is not in itself admissible in evidence. Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Nanhu Singh vs. Jaheer reported in 2006 ACJ 803 while dealing with the issue whether the documents of criminal case merely by its production will be admissible in evidence and held thus: “12. In view of the aforesaid, we arrive at the irresistible conclusion that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of F.I.R. is incorrect, unsound and in a way paves the path of vitiation. The Tribunal had erred by relying on the F.I.R. as if it was the gospel truth 9 or to put it differently, as if it was comparable to Einsteinean theory. In view of the aforesaid, we are not disposed to concur with the aforesaid finding and accordingly dislodge the same”. 18. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Chamundeswari and others reported in (2021) 18 SCC 596 while considering admissibility of documents of police case has held thus: “8. It is clear from the evidence on record of PW 1 as well as PW 3 that the Eicher van which was going in front of the car, had taken a sudden right turn without giving any signal or indicator. The evidence of PW 1 & PW 3 is categorical and in absence of any rebuttal evidence by examining the driver of Eicher van, the High Court has rightly held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of Eicher van. It is to be noted that PW 1 herself travelled in the very car and PW 3, who has given statement before the police, was examined as eyewitness. In view of such evidence on record, there is no reason to give weightage to the contents of the first information report. If any evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the first information report, the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of the first information report. 19. In the aforesaid facts of the case, where the so called witness i.e. Dharmendra has not been examined by the Insurance Company before the learned Claims Tribunal, his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred above, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be read as evidence. Accordingly, the said submission of the counsel for the appellant is not acceptable and it is repelled. 20. The offending vehicle, being a heavy goods truck, is capable of halting more quickly than a two-wheeler motorcycle. From the pleadings in the claim application and the evidence of Pawan Banjare (AW-2), it is 10 established that the tail-light of the offending truck was not functioning at the relevant time. Such failure constitutes negligence on the part of driver and owner of the said vehicle, particularly since a heavy goods vehicle moving on a public road without a proper tail-light poses grave danger to other persons travelling on the road. In these circumstances, plea of contributory negligence cannot be presumed; it is well settled that the burden to prove contributory negligence lies upon the party alleging it, and such fact must be specifically established before the Tribunal or the Court. 21. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jiju Kuruvila and others v. Kunjujamma Mohan and others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 166, where the Supreme Court has held thus: “20.5 The mere position of the vehicles after accident, as shown in a scene mahazar, cannot give a substantial proof as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of one or the other. When two vehicles coming from opposite directions collide, the position of the vehicles and its direction, etc. depends on a number of factors like the speed of vehicles, intensity of collision, reason for collision, place at which one vehicle hit the other, etc. From the scene of the accident, one may suggest or presume the manner in which the accident was caused, but in the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence, no conclusion can be drawn as to whether there was negligence on the part of the driver. In absence of such direct or corroborative evidence, the Court cannot give any specific finding about negligence on the part of any individual.” 22. Another judgment of the Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of contributory negligence in the matter of Minu Rout and another v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and others reported in (2013) 10 SCC 695 and held thus: “17. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, has recorded the 11 erroneous finding by placing strong reliance upon the charge-sheet, Ext. 1 without considering the fact that the criminal case was abated against the deceased and further has made observation in the judgment that the appellants had not produced the FIR. Therefore, it has held that there was 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased driver in causing accident. The Tribunal ought to have seen that non-production of FIR has no consequence for the reason that charge-sheet was filed against the truck driver for the offences punishable under section 179 read with Section 302 IPC read with the provisions of the MV Act. The Insurance Company, though claimed permission under Section 170(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 from the Tribunal to contest the proceedings by availing the defence of the owner of the offending vehicle, it did not choose to examine either the driver of the truck or any other independent eyewitness to prove the allegation of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Susil Rout on account of which the accident took place as he was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner. In the absence of rebuttal evidence adduced on record by the Tribunal, the Tribunal should not have placed reliance on the charge-shhet, Ext. 1 which the deceased driver was mentioned as an accused and on his death his name was deleted from the charge-sheet. The Tribunal has referred to certain stray answers elicited from the evidence of PW 2 and PW 3 in their cross-examination and placed reliance on them to record the finding on Issue 1.” 23. In the light of aforementioned law laid down by the Supreme Court, if the facts and circumstances of the present case is considered, it is evident that Insurance Company has not produced any witness nor any other independent eye-witness to the accident to prove the fact of contributory negligence. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of Jiju Kuruvila (supra) that merely position of the vehicles will not itself sufficient to prove the fact of contributory negligence, but it can be an evidence only to suggest or presume in which manner the accident was caused, in absence of any direct or corroborative 12 evidence, no conclusion can be drawn as to whether there was negligence on the part of the driver of other vehicle. 24. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak and Others, reported in (2002) 6 SCC 455 has observed that where once there is negligence, if one party places another in a situation of danger, which compels that other to act quickly in order to extricate himself, it does not amount to contributory negligence if that other acts in a way, which, with the benefit of hindsight, is shown not to have been the best way out of the difficulty. 25. Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in the case of Sushma vs. Nitin Ganapati Rangole reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2584 considering the decision in the case of Swadling vs. Cooper [1931 AC 1], observed that merely failure to avoid collision through extraordinary precautions does not inherently constitute negligence. It further observed with regard to statutory provisions under the road regulations and observed thus: “27. A highway or a road is a public place as defined in Section 2(34) of the Act: - “2(34) “public place” means a road, street, way or other place, whether a thoroughfare or not, to which the public have a right of access, and includes any place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage;” 28. Section 121 of the Act provides that the driver of a motor vehicle shall make such signals and, on such occasions, as may be prescribed by the Central Government. 29. Section 122 of the Act provides that no person in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle or any trailer to be abandoned or to remain at rest on any “public 13 place” in such a position or in such a condition or in such circumstances so as to cause or likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to other users of the public place or to the passengers. 30. Section 126 of the Act provides that no person driving or in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle to remain stationary in any public place. 31. Section 127(2) of the Act provides that where any abandoned, unattended, wrecked, burnt or partially dismantled vehicle is creating a traffic hazard, because of its position in relation to the public place, or its physical appearance is causing the impediment to the traffic, its immediate removal from the public place by a towing service may be authorised by a police officer having jurisdiction. 32. Regulation 15 of the Rules of Road Regulation, 1989 which were prevailing on the date of the incident provides that every driver of a motor vehicle shall park the vehicle in such a way that it does not cause or is not likely to cause danger, undue inconvenience to other road users. It casts a duty on the drivers of a motor vehicle stating that the vehicle shall not be parked at or near a road crossing or in a main road. obstruction or 33. These legal provisions leave no room for doubt that the person in control of the offending truck acted in sheer violation of law while abandoning the vehicle in the middle of the road and that too without taking precautionary measures like switching on 16 the parking lights, reflectors or any other appropriate steps to warn the other vehicles travelling on the highway. Had the accident taken place during the daytime or if the place of accident was well illuminated, then perhaps, the car driver could have been held equally responsible for the accident by applying the rule of last opportunity. But the fact remains that there was no illumination at the accident site either natural or artificial. Since the offending truck was left abandoned in the middle of the road in clear violation of the applicable rules and regulations, the burden to prove that the placement of the said vehicle as such was beyond human control and that appropriate precautionary measures 14 taken while leaving the vehicle in that position were essentially on the person in control of the offending truck. However, no evidence was led by the person having control over the said truck in this regard. Thus, the entire responsibility for the negligence leading to the accident was of the truck owner/driver.” 26. Merely because a criminal case was registered by the police or certain documents were prepared during investigation, the same by itself cannot be treated as substantive and admissible evidence of contributory negligence. At best, such documents may have corroborative value, but unless proved by examining the author of the document or the witness concerned, no reliance can be placed upon them. In the present case, the Appellant/Insurance Company has not examined any independent eye-witness, nor produced any person connected with the criminal proceedings. Even the employee of the Insurance Company, who was admittedly not present at the scene, cannot establish the factum of negligence on the part of the deceased. Thus, in absence of direct or cogent evidence, plea of contributory negligence remains unsubstantiated. 27. Negligence, ordinarily means breach of legal duty to care, but for the purpose of expression “contributory negligence”, it does not mean breach of a duty. It is failure by a person to use reasonable care in respect of any person or his. 28. For the aforementioned reasons and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and further considering that even if some extraordinary precaution is required to be taken on the part of the deceased, driver of the motorcycle will not be considered to be negligence on the part of the deceased motorcyclist. 29. Considering entirety of facts and circumstances, evidence on record, 15 and the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the doctrine of contributory negligence referred to hereinabove, it is clear that the finding of the learned Claims Tribunal attributing 50% contributory negligence to the deceased is not sustainable. The Tribunal, without there being any reliable material, erred in fastening equal liability on the deceased. Accordingly, the said finding is set aside, and it is held that the accident occurred solely on account of the rash and negligent act of the driver/owner of the offending truck. It is ordered accordingly. 30. Now, I will consider submission made by the counsel for the appellant in MAC No. 2041/2019 i.e. the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. 31. The assessment of income of the deceased is not in dispute, the income of the deceased was Rs. 23,800/-. per month. Learned Claims Tribunal considering age of the deceased as 30 years added 40% of the assessed income towards loss of future prospects. Addition of 40% of assessed income towards loss of future prospects as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 will be in the case where the deceased was not in permanent employment or self-employed and was less than 40 years of age on the date of accident. In the same decision, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the deceased is a salaried person and was in permanent employment and less than 40 years of age, there shall be addition of 50% of the assessed income. In the aforementioned facts of the case, 16 where the deceased was an employee of Health Department, State of Chhattisgarh and was working on the post of Assistant Grade – III, therefore, there shall be addition of 50% to the assessed income. It is ordered accordingly. 32. So far as the second ground raised by the counsel for the appellants that sufficient amount of compensation is not awarded under the other conventional heads is concerned, perusal of the award would show that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- each under the head of funeral expenses and loss of estate and Rs. 40,000/- towards the loss of consortium to the applicant/widow which is to the tune of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra). The award of compensation under the head of consortium is further categorized by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuharu Ram, reported in (2018) 8 SCC., and explained the types of consortium to be spousal consortium for widow/widower, parental consortium to children and filial consortium to parents. In the case at hand, the Appellants/Claimants No. 2 is child and Appellant/claimant No. 3 is mother of the deceased and therefore, they are entitled for Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of parental and loss of filial consortium respectively which in total comes to Rs. 80,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. 33. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is taken as Rs.23,800/- and since at the time of death, deceased was 30 years old and in permanent employment, therefore, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the income 17 of deceased is required to be enhanced by 50% towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.35,700/- [Rs. 23,800 + Rs. 11,900 (50% of Rs. 23,800)]. Thus annual income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the compensation comes to Rs.4,28,400/- (35,700 x 12). After deducting income tax of Rs.8870/-, as computed above, net income of deceased would be Rs.4,19,530/-. Out of this amount, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and after deducting 1/3rd of the annual income, annual loss of dependency would come to Rs.2,79,688/- (Rs.4,19,530 – Rs.1,39,842). By applying multiplier of 15, to annual loss of dependency, total loss of dependency would come to Rs. 41,95,320/- (2,79,688 x 15). Besides this, claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of consortium, as discussed in preceding paragraph. Further, they are also entitled for Rs. 15,000 for funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000 for loss of estate as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. 34. In case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that there shall be increase of 10% on award of compensation on other conventional heads and therefore, the compensation towards loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium is to be increased by 10%. It is ordered accordingly. 35. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to claimants requires recomputation, which is as under: Particulars Compensation A) Annual Loss of income/ dependency less Rs. 41,95,320/- income tax and after addition @ 50% towards loss of future prospects = Rs. 18 4,19,530/- B) Deduction of 1/3 towards personal and living expenses (Rs. 4,19,530 -1/3 of Rs. 4,19,530= Rs. 2,79,688. C) Multiplier of 15 Rs. 2,79,688 x 15 = Rs. 41,95,320/- Loss of Spousal Consortium to appellant No. 1 Loss of Parental consortium and loss of Filial Rs. 44,000/- Rs. 88,000/- Consortium to Appellant No. 2 & 3 (Rs. 40,000x2) Loss of estate Funeral Expenses Total Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 43,60,.320/- 36. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 43,60,320/-. Amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 37. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants No. 1 to 4 as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above. 38. In the result, the appeal filed by the Appellant/Insurance Company in MAC No. 688/2019 is dismissed and the appeal filed by the Claimants/Appellants in MAC No. 2041/2019 is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as mentioned above. Certified copy as per rules. Dey Sd/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge