1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1098 of 2024 1 - Karan Thakur S/o Late Napil Thakur Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Balud (Kochaipara), Tahsil Dantewada, P.S. Dantewada, District South Bastar, Dantewada, C.G. 2 - Smt. Manibai Thakur W/o Karan Thakur Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Balud (Kochaipara), Tahsil Dantewada, P.S. Dantewada, District South Bastar, Dantewada, C.G. ... Appellants versus 1 - Munnaram Markam S/o Late Somdu Markam Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Jaram (Lingopara) P.S. Katekalyan, District Dantewada, C.G. 2 - Tata A.I.G. Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office- Ozone 1st Floor, Office No. 106, 107, Fafadih Chowk, Bilaspur Road, Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsiyan with Mr. Vikas Patel, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Harneet Kaur on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board 11.09.2025 1) Heard on I. A. No. 1 application for condonation of delay of 35 days in filing the appeal. 2) Though opposed, but for the reasons stated in the application, considering that the Motor Vehicles Act being a benevolent legislation, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3) With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 4) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) has been filed by the appellants/claimants, being aggrieved by the award HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.09.19 18:20:53 +0530 2 dated 22.01.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Bastar Dantewada, (C.G.) (for short ‘learned Tribunal’) in Claim Case No. 118/2022. 5) By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 13,21,232/- to the appellants/claimants, on account of the death of deceased Lokesh Thakur in an accident that took place on 21.08.2022 when he was going towards his residence at Village Balood Kochaipara on his motorcycle, Hero Splendor bearing registration No. CG-18-P-7546. When he reached near Balood Kochaipara, the respondent No. 1, by driving his motorcycle Hero Splendor Plus bearing registration No. CG-18-L-9612 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle of deceased. As a result, he fell on the roadside along with his motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries on his head, face, and other parts of the body. He was immediately taken by 108 Ambulance to the District Hospital, Dantewada, where the doctors declared him dead. 6) As per the pleadings, the deceased/ Lokesh Thakur was aged about 23 years and was working as driver and earning a monthly income of Rs. 12,000/-. The appellants/claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased. 7) Respondent No. 1 filed his written statement denying the averments made in the claim application and contended that the accident had occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased. It was further pleaded that, as the accident was a result of a head-on collision, the principle of contributory negligence would apply. Respondent No. 2/Insurance Company, in the usual course, denied the averments of the claim application and further pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, thereby violating the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 3 8) On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed issues. While most of the issues were decided in favour of the appellants/claimants, issue No. 3 relating to contributory negligence was answered against them, holding that the deceased also contributed to the accident to the extent of 25%. 9) Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to contributory negligence is erroneous in law. It is further submitted that the salary of the deceased has been wrongly assessed and that proper consortium has not been awarded. 10) Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 supports the award and submits that the accident occurred due to a head-on collision between two motorcycles, in which respondent No. 1 also sustained injuries, as reflected in the First Information Report. Since the deceased died in the accident, the FIR came to be registered against respondent No. 1. Furthermore, the eyewitness Lokesh Thakur (AW-2) has also admitted that there was a head-on collision between the two motorcycles. Therefore, the finding of contributory negligence recorded by the learned Tribunal is correct. She further submits that, in the absence of documentary evidence regarding the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the minimum wages while assessing the monthly income. Thus, the award of just compensation has been passed, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records. 12) The first contention of Mr. Tulsiyan is that the deceased did not contribute to the accident. However, from the record, it is evident that both respondent No. 1 and the deceased were driving their respective motorcycles, and as per the testimony of Smt. Gayatri Prashad AW-3, the accident occurred due to a head- on collision between them. The Tribunal, upon due appreciation of the 4 evidence and relying on judicial precedents, recorded a finding that respondent No. 1 also sustained injuries in the accident and, accordingly, attributed 25% negligence to the deceased. This finding, being based on proper appreciation of evidence, calls for no interference. 13) Coming to the next submission, whether just compensation has been awarded or not. The Tribunal assessed the deceased as a skilled labourer, took his daily wage at Rs. 442/-, and after deducting four Sundays, determined his monthly income at Rs. 10,972/-. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal erred in doing so. The evidence on record, including the testimony of Smt. Gayatri Prashad AW-3 clearly establishes that the deceased was employed as a driver under her and was being paid Rs. 12,000/- per month. 14) It is well settled that proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act are summary in nature and the Court is to assess the income on the basis of evidence and the test of preponderance of probabilities. Even otherwise, the minimum wages for a skilled worker prevailing at the relevant time were around Rs. 12,000/- per month, which also finds support from the testimony of Smt. Gayatri Prashad AW-3. Thus, this Court holds that the monthly income of the deceased can be safely taken as Rs. 12,000/-. 15) In light of the above and taking guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi and others; (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors; (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court is recomputing the compensation as below:- S.N Particular Awarded by this Court 1. Monthly Income of the deceased 12,000/- 5 2. Future Prospect 40% 12,000 X40%=4,800/- 3. Net Income 12,000+4,800=16,800/- 4. Yearly income 16,800 X12=2,01,600/- 5. Personal expenditure 1/2 2,01,600/2= 1,00800/- 6. Yearly dependency 2,01,600-1,00800=1,00,800/- 7. Multiplier of 18 applied to assess loss of dependency 1,00,800 X18= 18,14,400/- 8. 25% deducted for contributory negligence 18,14,400X40%=4,53,000/- 9. The loss of dependency, after deducting 25% on account of contributory negligence 18,14,400- 4,53,000=13,60,800/- 10.. Funeral Expenses 16,500/- 11. Loss of estate 16,500/- 12. Filial consortium 88,000/- (44,000/- each to A-1 & A- 2) Total compensation Rs. 14,81,800/- 11) For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs.13,21,232/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 14,81,800/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 13,21,232/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 1,60,568/-. The additional amount shall carry interest @6% per anuum from the date of appeal i.e. 02.06.2024. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. 12) Respondent No.2/Insurance company shall deposit the same amount within 60 days. On such deposit being made, Rs. 65,000/- each shall be invested in the name of appellants/claimants No. 1 and 2 for a period of 2 years in FDR at any Nationalized Bank, rest of the amount shall be paid to appellant/claimant No.2 through bank transaction/account payee cheque. 13) Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari