1 2025:CGHC:38808 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 474 of 2022 Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through - Its Legal Officer, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 301, 302, Corporate House, 169 Rnt Marg, Opposite Jhabua Tower Indore (M.P.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Ranjana Meshram W/o Late Moolchand Meshram Aged About 51 Years R/o Village, Post And P.S. Bagnadi, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - Anandrao Meshram S/o Late Moolchand Meshram Aged About 22 Years R/o Village, Post And P.S. Bagnadi, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - Kuldeep Singh Gujar S/o Gurnam Singh Gujar R/o 130- Gurunanakpura, Ashok Nagar Nagpur, G.P.O. Nagpur (M.H.) At Present R/o Ge Road, Tatiband, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Pradeep Baddhai S/o Kalucharan Baddhai Aged About 26 Years R/o Post-Dwarapara, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate For Respondents 1 & 2 : Ms. P. Das, Advocate 2 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 05.08.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the impugned award dated 30/07/2021 passed by learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon in Claim Case No. 132/2015 by which compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,81,800/- has been awarded in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2/claimants for the death of Jagdish Meshram and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant (Insurance Company). Cross- objection has also been filed by respondents No. 1 and 2/claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 04/05/2014 at about 7 PM, deceased Jagdish Meshram was returning from village Sirpur to his house in his motorcycle along with his friend when near GE Road No. 6, Truck bearing Registration No. CG 04/DA 9277, was parked by respondent No. 3 in a faulty condition without there being any indicators lit, and he dashed his 3 motorcycle into the said truck due to which he suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. 3. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that respondent No. 3 parked the offending vehicle without lighting any indicator or without any sign due to which deceased Jagdish Meshram dashed his motorcycle from behind and died in the accident. Contributory negligence on the part of the deceased was not found proved and after calculation, awarded Rs. 6,81,800/- as total compensation with interest @ 7 % p.a. from the date of filing of claim application. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in granting compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,81,800/- in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2/claimants and fastening the liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant (Insurance Company) as deceased had committed contributory negligence, therefore, claimants are not entitled for any compensation and the cross-objection filed by them seeking enhancement of compensation is also liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2/claimants would submit that the instant appeal is liable to be 4 dismissed as the Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant (Insurance Company) and the plea of contributory negligence was neither expressly raised by them before the Tribunal nor any evidence was led in this regard. She would further submit that the Claims Tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 4,500/- per month whereas it ought to be Rs. 5,400/- as per the Minimum Wages notification issued for unskilled labourers in 2014 and since the deceased was aged about 30 years, multiplier of 17 would be applicable, as such, the cross-objection be allowed and compensation granted to the claimants be enhanced. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. The only plea that has been taken by the appellant (Insurance Company) is that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as he dashed his motorcycle into the offending vehicle which was parked and in a stationary condition. However, a careful perusal of the written statement filed by the appellant (Insurance Company) would show that neither plea of contributory negligence has been taken expressly nor evidence has been 5 led to demonstrate that contributory negligence was committed by the deceased. As such, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant (Insurance Company) and I do not find any good ground warranting interference with the impugned award qua the case of the appellant (Insurance Company). 8. So far as the cross-objection filed by respondents No. 1 and 2/claimants is concerned, learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased Jagdish Meshram to be Rs. 4,500/-, however, in the opinion of this Court, the monthly income of the deceased should be Rs. 5,400/- (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time) and Rs. 64,800/- per annum as he worked as an unskilled labourer. 9. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi 1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 3 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 6 Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 4,500/- x 12 = Rs. 54,000/- Rs. 5,400 x 12 = Rs. 64,800/- 2. Future Prospect (+) 40% i.e. Rs. 21,600/- = Rs. 75,600/- (+) 40% i.e. Rs. 25,920/- = Rs. 90,720/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/2 i.e. Rs. 37,800/- = Rs. 37,800/- (-) 1/2 i.e. Rs. 45,360/= Rs. 45,360/- 4. Multiplier (x) 16 = Rs. 6,04,800/- (x) 17 = Rs. 7,71,120/- 5. Loss of Estate, Funeral Expenses and Loss of Consortium Rs. 77,000/- Rs. 77,000/- Total Rs. 6,81,800/- Rs. 8,48,120/- 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 6,81,800/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 8,48,120/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 6,81,800/-, respondents No. 1 and 2/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 1,66,320/-. The appellant is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of 7 compensation shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 03/04/2019 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 11. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the appellant(Insurance Company) is dismissed whereas the cross-objection filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 (Claimants) is allowed and the impugned award is enhanced as stated above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet