1. Chandan Kumar Paikra Wd/o Batur Singh Paikra, Aged About 49 Years 2. Paikra v. 1. Pardesi Ram Chauhan @ Nanhi S/o Dhansay Chauhan, Aged About 33 Years R/o
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:30875 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2276 of 2019 1. Chandan Kumar Paikra Wd/o Batur Singh Paikra, Aged About 49 Years 2. Paikra, S/o Batur Singh Paikra, Aged About 29 Years both are resident of Amamuda, P.O. Khairjhinti, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh...............Claimants. ... Appellants versus 1. Pardesi Ram Chauhan @ Nanhi S/o Dhansay Chauhan, Aged About 33 Years R/o Jhabar, P.S. Deepka, Korba, Present R/o Lingiyadih, Ward No. -6, Oppo. Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (CG) (Vehicle Driver), 2. Nirmesh Dayal, S/o N.K. Dayal, Aged About 39 Years R/o Chandrakhata Colony, Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (CG) (Vehicle Owner) 3. Shreeram General Insurance Company Limited, Office At- E- 8, Epip Riico Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. Through Its Branch Manager, Shreeram General Insurance Company Limited, Fourth Floor, Maruti Heights, G.E. Roads, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (CG) (Insurer), ... Respondents For Appellants For Respondent No.3 : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 7/7/2025 1. Appellants-claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 30.7.2019 passed in Claim Case No.902/2018. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that claimants-appellants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.46,00,000/- under various heads, for death of Batur Singh Paikra in a motor vehicular accident. According to claimants (widow and son of deceased), on 1.3.2018 Batur Singh Paikra was returning home situated in village Aamamuda on his motorcycle, when he reached near Nawadih Turn, one vehicle bearing registration No.CG10-AA- 1412, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver (non-applicant No.1), dashed the motorcycle of Batur Singh and caused accident. In the said accident, Batur Singh sustained grievous injuries and died during the course of treatment. It was further pleaded that deceased was 50 years of age, working as Manager in Vanopaj Shahkari Maryadit, Forest Division Bilaspur, Bilaspur and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. 3 3. Non-applicant No.1 and 2-driver and owner of offending vehicle, filed reply to claim application pleading that non- applicant No.1 was driving offending vehicle slowly in moderate speed, there was a blind turn on the spot, there was no rashness and negligence on the part of non-applicant No.1 and the deceased met with accident due to his own fault. At the time of accident, non-applicant No.1 was having valid license. 4. Non-applicant No.3-Insurance Company also filed a separate reply and took a stand that principle of contributory negligence attracts in the present case; at the time of accident driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license, which amounts to violation of condition of insurance policy and, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. The Claims Tribunal after appreciating the pleadings and evidence placed on record (oral and documentary both) by the respective parties had arrived at a conclusion that accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of non- applicant No.1-driver and there was no violation of any condition of insurance policy. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal partly allowed claim application, awarded compensation of Rs.8,56,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. and fastened liability upon non-applicant No.3- Insurance Company to 4 satisfy the award. 6. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal towards the loss of dependency is just and proper. However, while awarding compensation under other heads, the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of loss of consortium to appellant No.2, son of the deceased. He further submits that in case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & ors reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, the concept of consortium has been categorized as spousal consortium for husband or wife of victim, parental consortium for the victim's son and daughter as well as filial consortium for mother and father of the deceased. Hence, he prays that the amount of compensation awarded to appellants be enhanced suitably. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respective respondents opposes submissions of learned counsel for appellants and submit that the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper, which does not call for any interference. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal. 9. Impugned award further reveals that while computing and awarding the compensation to appellants-claimants, the 5 Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium to appellant No.1, widow of deceased, and not awarded any amounts under the head of loss of consortium to appellant No.2, son of deceased and thereby committed mistake. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium is governed by the principles of awarding compensation under "loss of consortium" as laid down in the matter of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, according to which each claimant is entitled to consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each under spousal, filial and parental respectively in case claimants are wife/husband, parents and children. In the instant case, appellant No.2 is the son of deceased and therefore, he is also entitled for compensation towards loss of parental consortium. Hence, I deem it appropriate to award an amount of Rs 40,000/- to appellant No.2, son of deceased, for loss of parental consortium. It is ordered accordingly. 10.Accordingly, a sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded to appellant No.2 for loss of parental consortium and being so, appellants are now entitled for total amount of compensation of Rs.8,96,800/- in place of Rs.8,56,800/-, as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. This enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of application 6 till actual payment is made. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount disbursed to appellant pursuant to impugned award will be adjusted.
Decision
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-