1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 97 of 2021 1 - Priyanka Kujur W/o Late Markus Kujur Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Pat Post Ramkanda P. S. Bhandariya District Garhwa Jharkhand 2 - Niral Kujur S/o Late Markus Kujur Aged About 14 Years Appellant No. 2 Is Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Appellant No. 01 Priyanka Kujur W/o Late Markus Kujur, R/o Village Pat Post Ramkanda P. S. Bhandariya District Garhwa Jharkhand 3 - Nilesh Kujur S/o Late Markus Kujur Aged About 10 Years Appellant No. 3 Is Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Appellant No. 01 Priyanka Kujur W/o Late Markus Kujur, R/o Village Pat Post Ramkanda P. S. Bhandariya District Garhwa Jharkhand 4 - Lusiya Ekka W/o Philmon Kujur Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Pat Post Ramkanda P. S. Bhandariya District Garhwa Jharkhand 5 - Philmon Kujur S/o Late Hariya Kujur Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Pat Post Ramkanda P. S. Bhandariya District Garhwa Jharkhand --- Appellants versus 1 - Anrasul Ansari S/o Almin Ansari Aged About 46 Years R/o Q. No. 94, Chandpara Bata Samari P. S. And Tahsil Kushami District Balrampur Chhattisgarh .......(Owner Of Truck No. Cg/ac/0583) 2 - The Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch OfÏce Division OfÏce Manendragarh Road Near Ambedkar Chowk P. S. And Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh .........(Insurer Of Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2026.05.06 17:10:20 +0530 2 Truck No. Cg15/ac/0583) 3 - Subodh Mehta S/o Jairam Mehta Aged About 35 Years R/o Occupation -Owner Of Vehicle R/o Ward No. 68 Middle School Ke Bagal Me Uparbasti-Dhelwadih Kathghora P. S. And Tahsil Kathghora District Korba Chhattisgarh Owner Of Tailor No. Cg/12/s/1870 4 - The Branch Manager Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhansabha Road Pandari Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondents MAC No. 57 of 2021 1 - Madeena Bibi W/o Late Anwar Ansari Aged About 29 Years Occupation Housewife, Caste Musalman, R/o Village Chama, Post Peska, P.S. Meral, Chama, District Gadhwa (Jharkhand)., District : Garhwa *, Jharkhand 2 - Almuddin Ansari, S/o Nejam Ansari, (Father) Aged About 61 Years Caste Musalman, R/o Village Chama, Post Peska, P.S. Meral, Chama, District Gadhwa (Jharkhand)., District : Garhwa *, Jharkhand 3 - Khatuna Bibi, W/o Almuddin Ansari, (Mother) Aged About 56 Years Caste Musalman, R/o Village Chama, Post Peska, P.S. Meral, Chama, District Gadhwa (Jharkhand)., District : Garhwa *, Jharkhand 4 - Vigan Ansari, S/o Late Anwar Ansari, Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Madeena Bibi, W/o Late Anwar Ansari, Caste Musalman, R/o Village Chama, Post Peska, P.S. Meral, Chama, District Gadhwa (Jharkhand)., District : Garhwa *, Jharkhand 5 - Taufik Ansari, S/o Late Anwar Ansari, Aged About 10 Months, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Madeena Bibi, W/o Late Anwar Ansari, Caste Musalman, R/o Village Chama, Post Peska, P.S. Meral, Chama, District Gadhwa (Jharkhand). --- Appellants 3 versus 1 - Anrasul Ansari S/o Almeen Ansari, Aged About 46 Years R/o Mo. Qtr.No. 94, Chandpara Bata, Samri, P.S. And Tahsil Kusmi, District Balrampur Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Manendragarh Road, Near Ambedkar Chowk, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh)......(Insurance Company Of Truck No. C.G.15 Ac 0583)., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Subodh Mehta, S/o Jairam Mehta, Aged About 35 Years Occupation Vehicle Owner, R/o Ward No. 6, House No. 68, Beside Middle School Uparbasti- Dhelwadih Katghora, P.S. And Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (Chhattisgarh).........(Vehicle Owner Of Tailor No. C.G. 12 S 1870), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road Pandri Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents MAC No.57 of 2021 For Appellants : Shri C.J.K. Rao, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Shri Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Shri Raj Awasthi, Advocate MAC No.97 of 2021 For Appellants : Ms. Akanksha Vishwakarma, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Shri Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Shri Raj Awasthi, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 04/05/2026 1. As both the appeals arise out of the same accident, they are 4 being heard and decided together. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an accident occurred on 13.12.2017 in which two vehicles, one truck trailer bearing registration No.CG 12 S 1870 (for short ‘vehicle No.1’) and truck bearing registration No.CG 15 AC 0583 (for short ‘vehicle No.2’) were involved. Both the vehicles collided with each other and made a head on collision on the date of accident by drivers of their respective vehicles driving the vehicles rashly and negligently resulting into death of drivers of both the vehicles. Deceased Anwar Ansari was driving offending vehicle No.1, whereas deceased Marcus Kujur was driving offending vehicle No.2. Legal representatives of both the deceased drivers made claim applications before the 1st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) (for short ‘Claims Tribunal’) under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) claiming compensation on account of death of both the drivers. The owners and insurers of both the offending vehicles were arrayed as respondents in the claim applications. The claim application filed by the legal representatives of deceased Anwar Ansari was registered as Claim Case No.35 of 2018, whereas the claim application filed by the legal representatives of deceased driver Marcus Kujur was registered as Claim Case No.150 of 2018. MAC No.57 of 2021 arises out of Claim Case No.35 of 2018 and MAC No.97 of 2021 arises out of Claim Case No.150 of 2018. 3. Learned Claims Tribunal decided both the claim cases together and vide its common award dated 18.2.2020 awarded 5 compensation of Rs.4,73,200 to the legal representatives of deceased Anwar Ansari in Claim Case No.35 of 2018 and that of Rs.3,85,000 to the legal representatives of deceased Marcus Kujur in Claim Case No.150 of 2018. The Claims Tribunal while deciding the claim applications held that the drivers of both the offending vehicles contributed to the tune of 50% in causing the accident. Thus, it found issue with regard to contributory negligence and deducted 50% of the amount assessed in favour of the claimants in respective claim cases. 4. Shri C.J.K. Rao and Ms. Akanksha Vishwakarma, learned counsel appearing for the respective appellants/claimants in the present appeals submit that the finding recorded with regard to contributory negligence is not proper as the accident had occurred between two offending vehicles of same nature. However, the assumption of income of the respective deceased drivers is on lower side. Thus, suitable enhancement in compensation may be made. 5. Opposing the above submission, Shri Anil Gulati and Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents/insurers submit that just compensation has been awarded and the same does not require any interference in the present appeals. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants though seriously disputed the finding with regard to contributory negligence, in fitness of the cases, this Court has gone through the material available on record. The Claims Tribunal while deciding the 6 issue has given a categorical finding that both the vehicles made a head on collision. The record reflects that both the drivers died and offences were also registered. Thus, the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal appears to be based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record. 7. Now, this leads this Court to the question as to whether just compensation has been awarded to the appellants/claimants or not. 8. As per pleadings of Claim Case No.35 of 2018, the claimants are widow, parents and 2 minor children of deceased Anwar Ansari. It has been further pleaded that at the time of accident, deceased Anwar Ansari was of 34 years of age. He was a driver and earning Rs.20,000 per month. Thus, total compensation of Rs.72,40,000 was claimed. 9. As per pleadings of Claim Case No.150 of 2018, deceased Marcus Kujur was aged about 40 years. He was earning Rs.13,000 per month. Thus, compensation of Rs.25,51,500 was claimed. 10. First, this Court would assess the just compensation in Claim Case No.35 of 2018. The evidence on record would also suggest that deceased Anwar Ansari was a driver and he was driving offending vehicle No.1. The Claims Tribunal for assessing his age relied upon a photo copy of his driving licence and found him to be aged about 32 years 11 months and 24 days being his date of birth as 20.12.1984. Though no other documentary 7 evidence is available on record to prove the income of deceased Anwar Ansari, however, the record suggests that he was a heavy goods vehicle driver. The date of accident is 13.12.2017. Thus, this Court can consider him to be a high skilled person. Apart from this, young widow of 29 years, 2 minor children of 4 years and 10 months and aged parents of 61 years and 56 years were depending upon the income of the deceased. 11. Having thus considered all aspects of the matter and the evidence available on record, this Court assesses monthly income of deceased Anwar Ansari to Rs.15,000. 12. In the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court recomputes the compensation in the following manner: Sl.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1 Annual Income (Rs.15,000 x 12) 1,80,000 2 Income with Future Prospects (Rs.1,80,000 x 40% Future Prospects = Rs.72,000; Rs.1,80,000 + Rs.72,000) 2,52,000 3 Income after Deduction of Personal and Living Expenses of the Deceased (Rs.2,52,000 / 4 = Rs.63,000; Rs.2,52,000 1,89,000 8 – Rs.63,000) 4 Application of Multiplier (Rs.1,89,000 x 16) 30,24,000 5 Loss of Dependency after Deduction for Contributory Negligence (Rs.30,24,000 / 2) 15,12,000 6 Funeral Expenses 15,000 7 Loss of Estate 15,000 8 Spousal Consortium to Wife of the Deceased 40,000 9 Parental and Filial Consortium to 2 Children and 2 Parents of the Deceased (Rs.40,000 x 4) 1,60,000 Total Compensation = 17,42,000 (-) Compensation Awarded by the Claims Tribunal = 4,73,200 Enhancement in Compensation = 12,68,800 13. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the appellants/claimants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of compensation of Rs.12,68,800. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the instant appeal, i.e., 30.1.2021 till final payment of the enhanced compensation. Respondent No.2/Oriental Insurance company Limited is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court along with the interest within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Out of the enhanced amount of compensation, Rs.3,00,000 each, total Rs.6,00,000 shall be invested in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank in the names of appellants No.4 and 5 till their attaining majority. Rs.4,00,000 shall be invested in fixed deposit in the same nationalised bank in the name of appellant No.1 for a period of 2 years. Rs.1,00,000 each, total 9 Rs.2,00,000 shall be disbursed to appellants No.2 and 3. Remaining amount shall be disbursed to appellant No.1. Rest of the impugned award shall remain intact. 14. Now, this Court would assess the just compensation in Claim Case No.150 of 2018. The evidence on record would suggest that deceased Marcus Kujur was a driver and he was driving offending vehicle No.2. The Claims Tribunal having gone through his driving licence (Ex.P8) assessed his age to 45 years 2 months and 8 days being his date of birth as 5.10.1972. Though no other documentary evidence is available on record to prove the income of deceased Marcus Kujur, however, record suggests that he was a heavy goods vehicle driver. The date of accident is 13.12.2017. Thus, this Court can consider him to be a high skilled person. Apart from this, young daughter of 21 years, 2 minor children of 14 years and 10 years and aged parents of 63 years and 63 years were depending upon the income of the deceased. 15. At this stage, learned Counsel Shri Raj Awasthi appearing for respondent No.4/Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited submits that higher future prospects of 40% has been added to the income of deceased Marcus Kujur. According to the learned counsel, adding of 25% future prospects would be appropriate. 16. Having thus considered all aspects of the matter and the evidence available on record, this Court assesses monthly income of deceased Marcus Kujur to Rs.15,000. 10 17. In the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the matters of Pranay Sethi case (supra), Sarla Verma case (supra) and Nanu Ram case (supra), this Court recomputes the compensation in the following manner: Sl.No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1 Annual Income (Rs.15,000 x 12) 1,80,000 2 Income with Future Prospects (Rs.1,80,000 x 25% Future Prospects = Rs.45,000; Rs.1,80,000 + Rs.45,000) 2,25,000 3 Income after Deduction of Personal and Living Expenses of the Deceased (Rs.2,25,000 / 4 = Rs.56,250; Rs.2,25,000 – Rs.56,250) 1,68,750 4 Application of Multiplier (Rs.1,68,750 x 13) 21,93,750 5 Loss of Dependency after Deduction for Contributory Negligence (Rs.21,93,750 / 2) 10,96,875 6 Funeral Expenses 15,000 7 Loss of Estate 15,000 8 Parental Consortium to 3 Children and Filial Consortium to 2 Parents (Rs.40,000 x 5) 2,00,000 Total Compensation = 13,26,875 (-) Compensation Awarded by the Claims Tribunal = 3,85,000 Enhancement in Compensation = 9,41,875 18. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the appellants/claimants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of compensation of Rs.9,41,875. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the 11 instant appeal, i.e., 25.2.2021 till final payment of the enhanced compensation. Respondent No.4/Bajaj Allianz General Insurance company Limited is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court along with the interest within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Out of the enhanced amount of compensation, Rs.2,50,000 each, total Rs.5,00,000 shall be invested in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank in the names of appellants No.2 and 3 for a period of 5 years. Rs.2,50,000 shall be invested in fixed deposit in the same nationalised bank in the name of appellant No.1 for a period of 2 years. Rs.75,000 each, total Rs.1,50,000 shall be disbursed to appellants No.4 and 5. Remaining amount shall be disbursed to appellant No.1. Rest of the impugned award shall remain intact. 19. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent shown above. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Gopal