[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Royal Sundaram General Insurance ... vs Fagnuram Yadav on 17 April, 2026
1
MAC No. 1181 of 2020 & MAC No.1185 of 2020
2026:CGHC:17586
AFR
Digitally
ANKIT signed
KUMAR by
ANKIT
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SINGH KUMAR
SINGH
MAC No. 1181 of 2020
Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional
Office, Raj Chamber, Beneath Third Mova Over Bridge, Raipur, Tahsil
And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.....(Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Truck
No. H.R. 38 U.5179)...........Insurer/non-Applicant No.3.
--- Appellant
versus
1. Smt. Sarita Sidar W/o Late Laxman Sidar, Aged About 45 Years;
2. Ku. Priti Sidar D/o Late Laxman Sidar, Aged About 18 Years;
3. Ku. Arti Sidar D/o Late Laxman Sidar, Aged About 15 Years, Through
Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sarita Sidar;
All are R/o Village Barpani, Post Sankara, Thana Saliha, Tahsil Kasdol,
District Baloda Bazar (Chhattisgarh).................Claimants.
4. Majid Khan S/o Late Janu Musalman R/o Rethora, House No. 165,
Police Station And District Luhu Mewat (Hariyana). (Driver Of
Offending Vehicle (Truck) No. H.R. 38 U.5179)..........Non-Applicant No.
1/driver.
5. Manjit Singh Rana S/o Jagat Singh Rana, R/o House No. 68, Street
No. 4, Near Malerana Road, Adarsh Nagar, Vallabhgarh Faridabad,
District Vallabhgarh (Hariyana) (Owner Of Offending Vehicle (Truck)
No. H.R. 38 U.5179...........Non-Applicant No. 2/owner.
--- Respondents
MAC No. 1181 of 2020 & MAC No.1185 of 2020
Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd., Through Divisional
Office, Raj Chamber, Beneath Third Mova Over Bridge, Raipur, Tahsil
And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle
Truck No. H.R. 38 U. 5179) (Insurer / Non - Applicant No. 3).
--- Appellant
Versus
1. Fagnuram Yadav, S/o Late Kaliya Yadav, Aged About 46 Years;
2. Smt. Gori Yadav W/o Fagnuram Yadav, Aged About 43 Years;
3. Arjun Yadav S/o Fagnuram Yadav, Aged About 14 Years, Minor,
Through His Natural Guardian Father Fagnuram Yadav;
All are R/o Ward No. - 7, Sankara Thana - Sankara, District -
Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. (Claimants)
4. Majid Khan S/o Late Janu Musalman R/o Rethora, House No. 165,
Police Station And District - Luhu Mewat (Hariyana) (Driver Of
Offending Vehicle (Truck) No. H.R. 38 U. 5179) (Non-Applicant No. 1/
Driver).
5. Manjit Singh Rana S/o Jagat Singh Rana, R/o House No. 68, Street
No. 4, Near Malerana Road, Adarsh Nagar, Vallabhgarh Faridabad,
District - Vallabhgarh (Hariyana) (Owner Of Offending Vehicle (Truck)
No. H.R. 38 U. 5179) (Non-Applicant No. 2/ Owner).
--- Respondents
For Appellants :- Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate.
For Respondents :- None.
SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Judgment On Board
17.04.2026
1. Since the common question of law and facts is involved in the
present case and they have arisen out of common accident, though
MAC No. 1181 of 2020 & MAC No.1185 of 2020
different claim cases, they have been clubbed together, heard
together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. These two appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (for short "Act of 1988") have been preferred by the
appellants/Insurance Company challenging the impugned awards
dated 13.03.2020 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh (for short
"Claims Tribunal") in Claim Cases No. H-77/2017 and H-75/2017
respectively, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the
claimants' application and awarded compensation along with interest
by fastening the liability upon the appellant/Insurance Company.
3. Mr. Anupam Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance
Company, at the outset, raised contention that the interest should
not be awarded on the component of future prospects as it is
received in advance enuring to the benefit of claimants only in future
and, therefore, 9% interest awarded by the Claims Tribunal is liable to
be set aside on the component of future prospect.
4. None for the respondents/claimants though served.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants/Insurance Company,
considered his submission and gone through the records precisely.
MAC No. 1181 of 2020 & MAC No.1185 of 2020
6. The short question involved in the present two appeals is that
whether the interest on the future prospect awarded by the Claims
Tribunal is payable to the claimants or not?
7. The aforesaid question has been observed by the Supreme Court in
the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Niru and others1 as
under:-
"9. A very relevant issue agitated by the Insurance Company is
the illegality in awarding interest for future prospects, which in
any event is an amount received in advance, normally enuring
to the benefit of the claimants only in future. This is the only
contention taken in the connected appeal bearing SLP(C)
No.22136 of 2024. We find absolutely no reason to accept this
argument. In SLP(C) No.11340 of 2020, the multiplier applied
looking at the life span of the deceased and the claimants is 13.
Before the Tribunal itself, the case was pending for 12 years
and the only amount received by the claimants was
Rs.50,000/-. Hence though amounts are awarded for future
prospects taking the multiplier of 13; in effect, the money is
received only after the period for which the multiplier is
adopted. Similar is the case in SLP(C) No.22136 of 2024 where
the accident occurred in 2018, the multiplier applied is 17 and
we are seven years from the date of accident.
10. We cannot but observe that there was nothing stopping
the Insurance Company from settling the claim on a
computation, on receipt of intimation of the accident,
especially since the determination of compensation for loss of
dependency, on death being occasioned in a motor vehicle
2025 ACJ 1723
MAC No. 1181 of 2020 & MAC No.1185 of 2020
accident, can be determined as evident from the judicial
precedents; at least provisionally.
11. In fact, it is due to the repudiation of or refusal to consider
the claim that the claimants are driven to the Tribunal. When
the matter is pending before the Tribunal or in appeal before
the higher forums, the claimants are deprived of the
compensation for future prospects. If they are paid in time, it
could be utilized by the claimants and on failure, the loss of
dependency would force the claimants to source their
livelihood from elsewhere. This is sought to be compensated
at least minimally by award of interest, which oftener them
ever is nominal also since only simple interest is awarded. If
the amounts were disbursed to the claimants on a rough
calculation, on intimation of the accident to the Insurance
Company, subject to the award of the Tribunal, necessarily
there would not have been any interest liability at least to the
extent of the disbursement made. Hence, we reject the
contention and direct that the entire award amounts would be
paid with interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of
filing of the claim till the date of disbursement, deducting only
Rs.50,000/- granted as interim compensation, in SLP(C)
No.11340 of 2020 and 6 per cent in SLP(C) No.22136 of 2024
as awarded by the High Court; deduction to be made for the
amounts already paid.
8. The contention raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company,
has clearly been answered by the Supreme Court in the above
judgment holding that the interest on the future prospect is
awardable. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the
MAC No. 1181 of 2020 & MAC No.1185 of 2020
present two appeals filed by the Insurance Company, therefore, the
appeals deserve to be and is accordingly, dismissed. No cost(s).
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
Ankit
