1 2025:CGHC:24010 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 709 of 2018 1 - The New India Assurance Company Limited Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Iind Floor, Rama Trade Centre, Opp. Rajiv Plaza, Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle No. Cg-12-S-6306) (Non-Applicant No.3), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Sarita Yadav Wd/o Late Manoj Kumar Aged About 23 Years R/o Akaltara, Ward No.03, Sanjay Nagar, P.S. And Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (Applicant No.1), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Divyansh S/o Late Manoj Kumar Yadav Aged About 1 Years Minor Through The Mother Smt. Sarita Yadav (Res. No.1) R/o Akaltara, Ward No.03, Sanjay Nagar, P.S. And Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (Applicant No.2), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Gorelal S/o Late Bhuneshwar Lal Yadav Aged About 63 Years R/o Akaltara, Ward No.03, Sanjay Nagar, P.S. And Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (Applicant No.3), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 4 - Smt. Munni Bai W/o Gorelal Yadav Aged About 60 Years R/o Akaltara, Ward No.03, Sanjay Nagar, P.S. And Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (Applicant No.4), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 5 - Dinesh Kumar S/o Shivnarayan Rathor Aged About 34 Years R/o Hardi Bazar, P.S. Hardi Bazar, Tahsil Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Driver) (Non-Applicant No.1), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 6 - Vijay Kumar S/o Babulal Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o H.No. 446-C, Deepika Road Hardi Bazar, P.S. Haldi Bazar, Tahsil Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Owner) (Non-Applicant No.2), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 807 of 2018 1 - Smt. Sarita Yadav W/o Late Manoj Kumar Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Akaltara Ward No.3 Sanjay Nagar Thana And Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Dibyansh S/o Late Manoj Kumar Aged About 1 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Sarita Yadav, R/o Village Akaltara Ward No.3 Sanjay Nagar Thana And Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Gorelal S/o Late Bhuneshwer Lal Yadav Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Akaltara Ward No.3 Sanjay Nagar Thana And Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 4 - Smt. Munni Bai W/o Gorelal Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Akaltara Ward No.3 Sanjay Nagar Thana And Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Dinesh Kumar S/o Shivnarayan Rathor Aged About 34 Years R/o Hardi Bazaar, Thana Hardi Bazaar Tahsil Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Haiwa No. C.G.12/s/6306), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vijay Kumar S/o Babulal Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o House No. 446 C Deepika Road Hardi Bazaar Thana Hardi Bazaar Tahsil Pali District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Haiwa No. C.G.12/s/6306), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Rama Tred Center 2nd Floor Old Bus Stand In Front Of Rajeev Plaza Bilaspur, Thana Civil Line Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Haiwa No. C.G.12/s/6306), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Arjun Lal Singhroul, Advocate appeared for their respective parties. Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 09/06/2025 4 1. These appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, have been preferred by the Insurance Company and Claimants challenging the award dated 24.02.2018 passed by the sIst Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur District Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 441 of 2017, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of 16,68,688/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the ₹ date of claim petition till its realisation in favour of the claimants. 2. Facts of the present case, in brevity, is that prior to the incident, deceased, namely, Manoj Kumar Yadav was working as an agent at HDFC Bank in Akaltara and was earning a monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. With this income, he was supporting himself, his family and was managing the household expenses smoothly and happily. On 12.07.2017 at around 3:00 PM, deceased (Manoj Kumar Yadav) was returning to Akaltara from Baloda on his motorcycle, bearing registration number CG 11 MA 0190 (ES Sport). When he reached the main public road near the culvert between the villages of Parsahi Bana and Karhidih, a Hyva vehicle bearing registration number CG 12 S 6306, coming from the opposite direction and being driven by respondent/driver in a rash and negligent 5 manner, suddenly moved onto the wrong side of the road. The said vehicle, being driven at a high speed, dashed deceased (Manoj Kumar Yadav) with great force while he was riding his motorcycle slowly on his right side. The collision was so severe that the Hyva ran over him, and one of its wheels crushed his head, causing his brain to come out, leading to his instant death on the spot. Local residents immediately rushed to the scene and with the help of the 108 emergency service, took him to the Community Health Centre, Akaltara, District Janjgir- Champa. However, upon examination and postmortem, the doctors declared him dead. 3. Since both the appeals arise from the same award and involve common questions of law and fact, therefore, they are being clubbed together, heard together and decided by this common order. 4. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred and fastened liability to the insurance company. The Tribunal assessed compensation under various heads and awarded ₹16,68,688/- with interest @6% per annum. 6 5. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate for the insurance company submits that the learned Tribunal has committed a grave error in assessing the monthly income of the deceased on the higher side, despite the fact that the income of the deceased was not proved by any cogent, reliable, or documentary evidence. In the absence of any proof of income, the learned Tribunal ought to have assessed the income on a notional basis, in accordance with settled legal principles. He further submits that the arbitrary and excessive assessment of income has resulted in an unjust and inflated award of compensation, which is liable to be reduced to the extent permissible under law. He goes on to submit that the accident in question was a case of head-on collision between the motorcycle being driven by the deceased and a Hyva Truck. Hence, the principle of contributory negligence is clearly attracted in the present case. The deceased was also negligent to a substantial extent. However, the learned Tribunal has completely overlooked this aspect and has failed to apportion liability accordingly, which has resulted in an erroneous determination of compensation. He would further submit that the impugned award is bad in law, contrary to the evidence available on record, and suffers from non- application of mind. The award passed by the learned 7 Tribunal is illegal, excessive, and unsustainable in its present form. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the compensation awarded is liable to be suitably reduced in accordance with law and the evidence on record. 6. Per contra, Mr. Arjun Lal Singhroul, Advocate for the claimants submits that the impugned award passed by the claims Tribunal is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. He would further submit that the Tribunal has committed grave legal error in disbelieving the cogent and reliable testimony of the witnesses produced by the claimants in support of their case. He goes on to submit that the Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 7,930/-, whereas it ought to have considered the income as Rs. 15,000/- per month, in light of the unchallenged and consistent evidence adduced by the claimants. Furthermore, the Tribunal rightly considered 40% addition towards future prospects in view of the binding precedent laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., AIR 2017 SC 5157. However, the Tribunal further committed the error in not awarding the loss of company, filial consortium and parental 8 consortium as there being four dependents i.e. widow, children, and parent of the deceased. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal. 8. Firstly, MAC No.709 of 2018 (Appeal filed by the Insurance Company) is being considered. 9. As regards the plea of contributory negligence, the appellant – Insurance Company has not adduced any evidence before the Tribunal to substantiate that the deceased was also negligent in causing the accident. Neither any witness has been examined nor has the driver of the offending vehicle been produced before the Tribunal, nothing suggest negligence on the part of the deceased was brought on record. The plea of contributory negligence remains a bald assertion unsupported without any material evidence. 10. In the absence of any evidence on record, I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal warranting interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company (MAC No.709 of 9 2018) being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. So far as MAC No.807 of 2018 is concerned, the income of the deceased, namely, Manoj Kumar Yadav, who was working as an agent in HDFC Bank, was considered as per minimum wages circular issued by the State Government and according to that the income of the deceased is not required to be enhanced. Second ground raised by the counsel for the claimants that it is an admitted position, there are two minor sons and mother of the deceased, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion to enhance the award passed by the Tribunal in the respect of consortium part is concerned in following manner; Rs.40,000/- each is required to be awarded to the Appellant Nos.2 and 3 (MAC No.807 of 2018) as parental consortium and the tune of Rs.40,000/- is required to be enhanced and awarded to the Appellant No.4 (MAC No.807 of 2018) as filial consortium along with 10% enhance in every three years from the year of filing of this appeal i.e. 2018. Hence the claimant would be entitled for the amount of Rs.48,000/- each (40,000 + 4,000 + 4,000 increase after every three year) and the amount awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants to the tune of Rs.16,68,688/- is enhanced 10 by Rs.1,44,000/-, the total amount to be paid to the claimants is Rs.18,12,688/- (16,68,688 + 1,44,000). So far as the enhanced amount is concerned, the claimants are entitled to get the interest as given by the tribunal @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition and the same is also applicable to the amount enhanced i.e. Rs.1,44,000/- passed by this Court. It is further directed that the said enhanced amount shall be paid within the period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The claimants are also entitled to receive the enhanced amount of compensation, after deducting the amount already paid to them, along with interest as awarded. 12. Accordingly, MAC No.807 of 2018 is allowed in part and the amount passed by the tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saxena