1 2025:CGHC:46942 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 468 of 2022 The New India Assurance Company Nearest Branch Ambikapur District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) Through Its Authorised Authority, Manager, In-Charge T.P. Hub, Iind Floor, Rama Trade Centre, Opposite Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh … Appellant versus 1 - Ghunsai Sidar S/o Jageshwar Sidar, Aged About 50 Years Gond By Caste, R/o Village Nakbar, Tehsil Kansabel, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Tarabai, W/o Ghunsai Sidar, Aged About 45 Years Gond By Caste, R/o Village Nakbar, Tehsil Kansabel, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Umesh Kumar, S/o Baijnath, R/o Chandagarh, P.O. Tamta, P.S. Patthalgaon, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh)...........(Driver), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.09.15 10:52:57 +0530 2 4 - P.S. Deewan S/o Akbar Singh, R/o Ward No. 03, Sitapur, Tehsil Sitapur, District Sarguja (Chhattisgarh)....... (Registered Owner), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 and 2 : Mr. Govind Dewangan, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 11.09 .2025 1. Appellant (Insurane Company) has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter, “the Act of 1988”) challenging the impugned award dated 22/11/2021 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patthalgaon in Claim Case No. 03/2020 whereby compensation of Rs. 12,12,400/- along with 7.5 % interest per annum has been granted in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2/claimants for the death of Bachan Sai, aged about 28 years, working as unskilled labourer. 2. Cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of the CPC has also been filed by respondents No. 1 and 2/claimants 3 seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 3. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant (Insurance Company), would submit that the accident occurred on account of head on collission between the vehicle of the deceased as well as the offending vehicle, therefore, there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and as such, the Claims Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of the award amont in this regard. 4. Mr. Govind Dewangan, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2/claimants, would submit that the Claims Tribunal has rightly held that the fact of contributory negligence has not been proved by the appellant (Insurance Company). He would further submit that Claims Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- on notional basis which is liable to be enhanced, therefore, the compensation awarded to the claimants may suitably be enhanced. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. A careful perusal of the impugned award would show that though the appellant (Insurance Company) has taken a plea that there was contributory negligence on the part of 4 the deceased but no evidence has been led by them in this regard which has also rightly been held by the Claims Tribunal in paragraph 14. In that view of the matter, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly recoded the finding that the plea of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased has not been proved by the appellant (Insurance Company) by leading evidence. As such, I do not find any merit in this appeal. 7. So far as cross-objection filed by respondents No. 1 and 2/claimants is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000/- on notional basis as no document has been brought on record by the claimants to prove the actual income of the deceased. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any interference in the impugned award. 8. Accordingly, the instant appeal as well as the cross- objection, both are dismissed, being devoid of merits, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet