(MAC Nos.1487/2019 & 1512/2019) 2026:CGHC:18123 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1487 of 2019 {Arising out of award dated 6-4-2019 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Mahasamund in Claim Case No.H-12/2017} United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office: 1st Floor, Krishna Complex, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Non-Applicant No.3) --- Appellant versus 1. Smt. Chitrarekha Sahu, Wd/o Late Bhuneshwar Sahu, aged about 25 years, (Applicant No.1) 2. Lukesh, S/o Late Bhuneshwar Sahu, aged 2 month, Minor through his mother Smt. Chitrarekha Sahu (Respondent No.1) (Applicant No.2) 3. Suderam Sahu, S/o Late Nathuram Sahu, aged 56 years, (Applicant No.3) 4. Smt. Gaindi Bai Sahu, W/o Suderam Sahu, aged 52 years, (Applicant No.4) Respondent No.1 to 4 All are R/o Ward No.5, Nayapara, P.S. & District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 5. Jitendra Yadav, S/o Jagatram Yadav, aged 30 years, R/o Village Sorid, P.S. Fingeshwar, Tah. Chhura, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. (Driver) (Non-Applicant No.1) 6. Virendra Kumar Sinha, S/o Baldev Sinha, R/o Village Sorid Khurd, P.S. Fingeshwar, Tahsil Chhura, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. (Owner) (Non-Applicant No.2) --- Respondents SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2026.04.22 18:21:27 +0530 (MAC Nos.1487/2019 & 1512/2019) AND MAC No. 1512 of 2019 {Arising out of award dated 6-4-2019 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Mahasamund in Claim Case No.H- 90/2018} United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office: 1st Floor, Krishna Complex, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Non-Applicant No.3) --- Appellant Versus 1. Smt. Shyam Bai Dhruv, Wd/o Late Ganeshram Dhruv, aged about 38 years, (Applicant No.1) 2. Tuleshwar Dhruv, S/o Late Ganeshram Dhruv, aged 22 years, (Applicant No.2) 3. Smt. Kachna Bai Dhruv, W/o Gangadhar Dhruv, aged 62 years, (Applicant No.3) Respondent No.1 to 3 All are R/o Ward No.6, Nayapara, Police Station & District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 4. Jitendra Yadav, S/o Jagatram Yadav, aged 30 years, R/o Village Sorid, Police Station Fingeshwar, Tahsil Chhura, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. (Driver) (Non-Applicant No.1) 5. Virendra Kumar Sinha, S/o Baldev Sinha, R/o Village Sorid Khurd, Police Station Fingeshwar, Tahsil Chhura, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. (Owner) (Non-Applicant No.2) --- Respondents For Appellant/Insurance Company : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. For Respondents/Claimants : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate. For Respondents/Owner & Driver : Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Advocate. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board (MAC Nos.1487/2019 & 1512/2019) 21/04/2026 1. Since common question of law and fact is involved in both these appeals, they were clubbed together and heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellant/Insurance Company has preferred these appeals calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the impugned awards, by which liability has been fastened upon the Insurance Company, driver and owner of the offending vehicle, jointly and severally. 3. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein/Insurance Company, would make solitary submission that it is a case of composite negligence as per the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal in paragraph 33 of the impugned awards, but despite all the tortfeasor of party, except driver and owner of the offending vehicle truck who has died, therefore, apportionment/liability ought to have been fixed by the Claims Tribunal so that after payment of the awarded amount, it may be recovered from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, but that has not been done to determine the liability. 4. Mr. Bharat Rajput, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants, and Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the owner & driver of the offending vehicle – Tractor, would oppose the appeals and support the impugned awards. Page 4 of 7 (MAC Nos.1487/2019 & 1512/2019) 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. The Supreme Court in the matter of Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others1 laid down the principles with regard to liability of joint tort-feasors being joint and several and with regard to apportionment of compensation between two tort- feasors vis-a-vis claimant not permissible and held as under:- “18. xxx xxx xxx What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is as follows: (i) In the case of composite negligence, the plaintiff/ claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tort- feasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tort feasors is joint and several. (ii) In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between two tort-feasors vis-à-vis the plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He can recover at his option whole damages from any of them. (iii) In case all the joint tort-feasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to the court/Tribunal to determine inter se extent of composite negligence of the drivers. However, determination of the extent of negligence between the joint tort feasors is only for the purpose of their inter se liability so that one may recover the sum from the other after making whole of the payment to the plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has satisfied the liability of the other. In case both of them have been impleaded and the apportionment/extent of their negligence has been determined by the Court/Tribunal, in the main case one joint tortfeasor can recover the amount from the other in the execution proceedings. (iv) It would not be appropriate for the Court/Tribunal to determine the extent of composite negligence of the drivers of two vehicles in the absence of impleadment of 1 2015 (2) T.A.C. 677 (S.C.) : (2015) 9 SCC 273 (MAC Nos.1487/2019 & 1512/2019) other joint tort feasors. In such a case, impleaded joint tortfeasor should be left, in case he so desires, to sue the other joint tortfeasor in independent proceedings after passing of the decree or award.” 7. Following the principles of law laid down in Khenyei (supra), it is evident on record that all the tortfeasors, except owner & driver of the offending vehicle who died in the accident, are party, therefore, inter se liability ought to have been fixed after determining the extent of negligence between tortfeasors, however, that has not been done in the present case. 8. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the evidence available on record qua negligence, the appellant Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the extent of 60% of the total awarded amount and owner and driver of the tractor namely, Virendra Kumar Sinha and Jitendra Yadav, respectively, would be liable to pay compensation to the extent of 40% of the total awarded amount, as the vehicle was not insured and for which the doctrine of pay and recover would apply. It is ordered accordingly and it is directed that the Insurance Company shall first deposit the entire amount of compensation along with interest and thereafter, recover the same from owner and driver of the offending vehicle, in accordance with law. Page 6 of 7 (MAC Nos.1487/2019 & 1512/2019) Cross Appeal of the Claimants in MAC No.1487/2019 9. The Claims Tribunal has only taken income of the deceased to be ₹ 4,500/- per month and granted compensation accordingly, whereas it has to be taken as ₹ 6,000/- per month (as per minimum wages prescribed at the relevant point of time). 10. Thus, considering the evidence available on record and also considering the minimum wages prescribed at the relevant point of time, this Court is computing the compensation as below and the cross-appeal filed on behalf of the claimants in MAC No.1487/2019 is allowed in following terms :- S. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court/New Calculation 1. Income ₹ 4,500 x 12 = ₹ 54,000/- ₹ 6,000 x 12 = ₹ 72,000/- 2. Future Prospect (+) 40% i.e. ₹ 21,600/-; ₹ 54,000 + 21,600 = ₹ 75,600/- 40% i.e. ₹ 28,800/-; ₹ 72,000 + 28,800 = ₹ 1,00,800/- 3. Deduction (-) ¼ = ₹ 18,900/- ₹ 75,600 – 18,900 = ₹ 56,700/- (total income) (-) ¼ = ₹ 25,200/- ₹ 1,00,800 – 25,200 = ₹ 75,600/- (total income) 4. Multiplier (x) 17 = ₹ 9,63,900/- (x) 17 = ₹ 12,85,200/- 5. Loss of Estate ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 15,000/- 6. Funeral Expenses ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 15,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium ₹ 40,000/- ₹ 40,000 Total ₹ 10,33,900/- ₹ 13,55,200/- 11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹ 10,33,900/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹ 13,55,200/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹ 10,33,900/-, the claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 in MAC No.1487/2019 are held entitled for an additional amount of ₹ 3,21,300/-. The concerned (MAC Nos.1487/2019 & 1512/2019) party is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 6-1-2017 till its realisation. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 12.Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma