-1- 2025:CGHC:28064 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 363 of 2021 1 - Khilavan Singh Netam S/o Late Dasruram Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Ganesh Nagar, Nayapara, House No. 167, Thana Sirgitty , Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Vimla Bai Netam W/o Khilavan Singh Netam Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Ganesh Nagar, Nayapara, House No. 167, Thana Sirgitty , Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Gangaram Marskole S/o C.L. Marskole Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Dhanpuri, Raiyyat, Thana Bamhani Banjar, Tahsil Nainpur , District Mandala Madhya Pradesh. (Driver), District : Mandla, Madhya Pradesh 2 - Rakesh Kumar Tamboli S/o Late Dhaniram Aged About 44 Years R/o Old Kachehari Marg Kawardha, Police Station And Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. (Owner) 3 - Branch Manager Chola Mandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Byapar Vihar Road, In Beside Of Renu Duster Show Room, Thana Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate For Respondents : None though served Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 26.06.2025 1. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. 715/2019 vide award dated 24.02.2021. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,93,487/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, fastening the liability with the insurance company. 2. Despite the service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the insurance company. 3. As per the impugned award, the liability for compensation has been fastened on the insurance company. 4. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.05.2019 at about 7:00 PM, respondent No. 1 while driving the offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG-09-JG- 2943, in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the deceased from the wrong side. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The appellants/claimants, who are the parents of the deceased, claimed that the deceased was working as a mason and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. They claimed a total compensation of Rs. 45,00,000/-. 5. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle filed their reply and denied the -3- averments made in the claim petition. The insurance company also filed its reply contending that the deceased himself was negligent, as he was riding the motorcycle along with five children in violation of the Motor Vehicles Rules. 6. The learned Tribunal framed issues and the parties led their evidence. Thereafter, the Tribunal passed the impugned award dated 24.02.2021. 7. The Tribunal framed a specific issue on contributory negligence and held that the deceased was negligent to the extent of 25% for carrying five children on his motorcycle, and accordingly deducted 25% from the total compensation assessed. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submitted that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. It was the driver of the offending vehicle who, by driving in a rash and negligent manner, caused the accident. He further submitted that neither the insurance company nor the driver/owner of the offending vehicle led evidence to establish contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Though carrying five children on a motorcycle was in violation of motor vehicle rules but that alone would not establish contributory negligence warranting a deduction of 25% amount from the total compensation. He also contended that the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 343/- per day, whereas the evidence on record clearly establishes that the deceased was earning Rs. 500/- per day as a skilled mason. -4- 9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants/claimants at length and perused the material available on record. 10.To prove the income of the deceased, the claimants examined Dev Kumar Dhruv, the employer of the deceased, who deposed that the deceased was earning Rs. 500/- per day and Rs. 15,000/- per month. 11.The learned Tribunal assessed the daily income of the deceased at Rs. 343/- based on the notification issued by the State Government regarding minimum wages. 12.However, considering the fact that the deceased was working as a skilled mason and there is cogent oral evidence of his employer regarding his actual earnings, the assessment of daily income at Rs. 343/- appears to be on the lower side. Thus, the income of the deceased is reasonably assessed at Rs. 500/- per day, amounting to Rs. 15,000/- per month. 13.With regard to contributory negligence, there is no clinching evidence led by the insurance company or by the driver/owner of the offending vehicle to prove this fact. The Tribunal’s finding of 25% contributory negligence is based merely on conjectures and surmises, i.e. the deceased was carrying five children on the motorcycle. Mere violation of the motor vehicle rules in the absence of evidence cannot be treated as a sole ground for attributing contributory negligence. Thus, the finding of contributory negligence recorded by the learned Tribunal is -5- hereby set aside. 14.From the evidence on record, particularly the testimony of the employer, it has been established that the deceased was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 15,000 at the time of death. As per the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121, in cases where the deceased was unmarried and the claimants are dependent parents, a deduction of 1/2 of the income towards the personal expenses is to be made. Accordingly, 1/2 of Rs. 15,000, i.e., Rs. 7,500/- per month, is deducted towards the personal living expenses of the deceased. The remaining 1/2, i.e. Rs. 7,500/- per month is considered as the contribution to the familyThus, the annual contribution is Rs.1,26,000/-. Considering the age of the deceased to be approximately 26 years, the appropriate multiplier as per Sarla Verma (supra) is 17. Applying the multiplier, the loss of dependency is computed at Rs.21,42,000 (Rs. 1,26,000 × 17). 15. Re-assessing the compensation on the basis of the revised income of Rs. 15,000/- per month and without deduction towards contributory negligence, the compensation is calculated as under:- Heads of compensation Amount (in Rs.) 1. Loss of dependency (Rs. 15,000 x 12 x 17 x 1/2) Rs. 15,30,000/- 2. Future prospect-40% Rs.6,12,000/- Total = Rs. 21,42,000/- -6- Heads of compensation Amount (in Rs.) 3.Loss of consortium (parents) Rs.40,000x2=80,000/- 4. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 5. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Compensation (Rs. 21,42,000 + 1,10,000) Rs. 22,52,000/- Reassessed compensation (Rs. 22,52,000 – 13,93,487) Rs. 8,58,513/- 16. Accordingly, the enhanced compensation is Rs. 8,58,513/-, which shall be paid by the insurance company to the claimants, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization. 17.Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge NADIM