1 2025:CGHC:25893 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Order Reserved on 24.03.2025. Order Passed on 19.06.2025 MAC No. 1557 of 2017 1 - Narendra Sahu S/o Shri Yado Ram Sahu, aged about 40 years, R/o Village Bagtarai Tehsil Dhamtari District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh). 2 - Vinay Kumar S/o Shri Narendra Sahu aged about 10 years, minor through their natural guardian i.e. father Narendra Sahu R/o Village Bagtarai Tehsil Dhamtari District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh). 3 - Ku. Himani Sahu D/o Shri Narendra Sahu aged about 06 years, minor through their natural guardian i.e. father Narendra Sahu R/o Village Bagtarai Tehsil Dhamtari District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh). ... Appellants/Claimants Versus 1 - Rakesh Vishwakarma S/o Shri Punit Ram aged about 35 years, R/o village Amethi, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (CG). Driver of Tractor No. C G/ 05/X/4164 & Trolley No. CG/05/X/6588. 2 - Bheem Lal Sahu S/o Shri Ramadhar Sahu aged about 32 years, R/o Village Darri, Police Station Arjuni District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh . Owner of Tractor No. CG/ 05/X/4164 & Trolley No. CG/05/X/6588. 3 - The United India Insurance Company Limited , Krishna Complex, Kachery Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Insurer of Tractor No. CG/05/X/ 4164 & Trolley No. CG/05/X/6588. ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C.A.V. Order 1. The Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Claimants/appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') questioning the legality and propriety of the award dated 05.09.2017 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Dhamtari, District-Dhamtari (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 51/2016, whereby the learned Tribunal while allowing the claim in part has awarded the total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 19, 87, 836/- with interest @ 6% per annum, in favour of the appellants/claimants. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 28.11.2015 at about 3.30 pm, the wife of appellant No. 1 i.e., mother of the appellants No. 2 & 3 (Smt. Tara Sahu) was on her way after duty hours in Government Middle School, Kalartarayee to her house by driving vehicle Plezer No. CG/05/L/9357 and when she reached at Petrol Pump Colliery at that time, the offending vehicle Tractor bearing registration No. CG/05/X/4164 & Trolley No. CG/05/X/6588 being ridden by respondent No.1 very rashly and negligently dashed her vehicle badly from the back side, due to which she got grievous injuries on her stomach, waist and was rushed to Bathena hospital, looking to her serious condition, she was shifted to MMI, Raipur hospital and during the course of treatment, she demised on 22.12.2015. F.I.R. regarding the alleged accident was lodged at Police Station- Mekahara, Raipur, which was transferred to Police Station Arjuni, based upon which crime bearing No. 41/2016 under sections 279 and 304 of IPC was registered against 3 respondent No.1-driver. 3. On account of aforesaid accident, the appellants/claimants instituted a claim petition under section 166 of the Act of 1988 by submitting inter alia that the deceased was a 35 years old at the time of death, was taking care of herself and her family as she was working as a lecturer in Government Middle School, Kalartarayee by earning an income of Rs.32,324/- per month. Thus, she used to earn Rs. 3,87,888/- per annum. Since the age of the deceased was 35 years, according to the multiplier of 16, there has been a loss of income and dependency of Rs. 3,87,888 x 16= 62,06,208/-. Therefore, total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 01,96,73,000/- has been claimed under various heads. 4. Learned Claims Tribunal after appreciating oral and documentary evidence awarded a sum of Rs. 19,87,836/-. Hence, this appeal filed by the claimants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is partly bad- in-law as well as facts available on record. The learned Claims Tribunal failed to see that the claimants have examined witnesses and have proved their case, therefore, entire claim ought to have been decreed in favour of the claimants. The respondents have not produced any evidence and not discarded the evidence put by the appellants, therefore, the entire claim ought to have been decreed. The Learned Claims Tribunal has not properly awarded the compensation. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded proper compensation towards the expenses incurred on account of medical. The learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded 4 the compensation in respect of future prospects such as promotion, enhancement of pay revision/salary etc. The learned Claims Tribunal has also totally ignored the dicta laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and allowed compensation by taking plea of contributory negligence without any sufficient material, therefore, the impugned award deserves to be enhanced suitably in the light of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also learned Tribunal has erred in awarding interest on the amount of compensation at only 6 %, whereas it should have been awarded @ 9 %. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3/The United India Insurance Company has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellants/claimants, supported the impugned award and submits that the impugned award has been passed by the Tribunal after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record and rightly awarded just and proper compensation and also rightly fastened liablily of only 50 % on insurance company according to the Contributory and Negligence Act. Being so, this appeal is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The learned Claims Tribunal has framed five issus on the basis of pleadings of the parties, out of these issues, the important issues are issues No. 1 & 2 which are reproduced hereinunder for ready reference:- वादप्रश्न निष्कर्ष 01. क्या अावेदक क्रमांक 01 द्वारा निदांक हों। हाँ। किंकतु यह घटा 5 किंकतु यह घटा 28/11/2015 को करीब 3:30 बजे आनिद पेट्रोल पंप अावेदक क.01 एवं मृतितका कोलिलयारी के पास वाह ट्रेक्टर क.सी.जी. की बराबर-2 की योगदायी /05/एक्स/4164 एवं ट्राली क.सी.जी./05/ उपेक्षा का परिरणाम थी।एक्स/6588 को उतावलेप या उपेक्षापूण ढंग से चाल कर अपे प्लेजर कमांक सी.जी.05 एल. 9357 से जा रही श्रीमतित तारा साहू को टक्कर मारा जिजससे श्रीमतित तारा साहू को चोट लगे से उसकी मृत्यु हुई? अावेदक क.01 एवं मृतितका की बराबर-2 की योगदायी उपेक्षा का परिरणाम थी। 02. क्या घटा निदांक को मृलि;का श्रीमतित तारा साहू की मृतितका की उम्र 35 वर्ष थी उम्र 35 वर्ष थी तथा वह शासकीय माध्यनिमक शाला तथा उसकी माजिसक आय कलारतराई में शिशक्षक पचांयत के नियनिमत पद पर 30,848/- रूपये थी। काय करते हुए प्रतितमाह 32,324/- रूपये आय प्राप्त करती थी? मृतितका की उम्र 35 वर्ष थी तथा उसकी माजिसक आय 30,848/- रूपये थी। 9. The learned Claims Trbiunal finds that the deceased is also liable for the accident. As per injury report Ex. P/09 it was written that the “injury occurred due to the motorcycle slipping and the tractor trolley coming from behind running over the body on the stomach”. The learned Claims Tribunal on the basis of this injury report finds that the deceased is also liable for the accident, as such it fastened 50 % liablility on insurance company. 10. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the claimants have filed certified copy of criminal case vide Exs. P/01 to P/09 and as per F.I.R. Ex. P/02, the driver of the vehicle i.e., respondent No. 01 drove the offending vehicle in a very rash and negligent manner, due to which the accident occurred and the deceased Tara Sahu was dashed by the 6 driver of the Tractor bearing registration No. CG/05/X/6588. After completion of investigation, the police filed final report Ex. P/01 against the driver of the tractor i.e., non-applicant No. 1/respondent No. 1- Rakesh Vishwakarma and it is also clear from record that the respondent No. 01/non applicant No. 01 did not appear before the learned Claims Tribunal for examination, but the learned Claims Tribunal did not appreciate this fact that witness No. 1 Sanjay Baradia stated against the driver of tractor i.e., respondent No. 01, as such the appellants/claimants have filed the oral and documentary evidence against the non-applicant No. 01/respondent No. 01 the driver of the offending vehicle, but the learned Claims Tribunal did not appreciate this fact and without any sufficient material finds that the deceased is also liable for this accident. This finding is perverse and not sustainable in the eye of law. Issue No. 01 is reproduced herein as under:- वादप्रश्न निष्कर्ष 01. क्या अावेदक क्रमांक 01 द्वारा निदांक हों। किंकतु यह घटा 28/11/2015 को करीब 3:30 बजे आनिद पेट्रोल पंप अावेदक क.01 एवं मृतितका कोलिलयारी के पास वाह ट्रेक्टर क.सी.जी. की बराबर-2 की योगदायी /05/एक्स/4164 एवं ट्राली क.सी.जी./05/ उपेक्षा का परिरणाम थी।एक्स/6588 को उतावलेप या उपेक्षापूण ढंग से चाल कर अपे प्लेजर कमांक सी.जी.05 एल. 9357 से जा रही श्रीमतित तारा साहू को टक्कर हाँ। किंकतु यह घटा अावेदक क.01 एवं मृतितका की बराबर-2 की योगदायी उपेक्षा का परिरणाम थी। 7 मारा जिजससे श्रीमतित तारा साहू को चोट लगे से उसकी मृत्यु हुई? 11. As regards contributory negligence, learned Tribunal considering the medico legal certificate of Ex. P/09 wherein it is mentioned that the motorcycle got slipped, the tractor trolley coming from behind ran over the deceased, she sustained injury and the fact that this certificate has been duly proved by AW/03- Anita Agrawal, who came to the conlusion that the accident occurred as the deceased lost control over her vehicle and the offending vehicle coming from behind ran over her. In these circumstances, in view of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Tribunal held that the accident was a result of contributory negligence of both non-applicant/respondent No. 01 and the deceased. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the overall evidence on record, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in this finding of the learned Tribunal. 12. As regards income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence produced by the claimants in this regard, rightly assesed her income as Rs. 30,848/- per month. Further, the Tribunal has committed no illegality in making 1/3 rd deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased in view of the number of the defendants i.e., 03. Though, the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 16 considering the age of the deceased as 35 years, however it has fallen into error by not awarding any amount towards future prospects as the deceased was a permanent government servant. The Tribunal ought to have awarded 40% towards future prospects in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in 8 the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. So far as the amount of Rs. 15,000/- awarded towards medical expenses is concerned, in view of second schedule of 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the same cannot be faulted with. However, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding meager amount under the conventional heads, therefore, the claimants/appellants are held entitled for compensation as under:- Sl. No. Head Calculation (in rupees) 01. Income of the deceased @ Rs. 30,848/- per month. Rs. 3,70,176/- per annum. 02. 40% of the above added towards future prospects. (Rs. 3,70,176 + 1,48,070/-) Rs. 5,18,786/- 03. 1/3rd deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased (5,18,786- 1,72,929/- ) Rs. 3,45,857/- 04. Mulltiplier 16 05. Total loss of dependency Rs.3,45,857x16= 55,33,712/- 06. Funeral Expenses Loss of Estate Loss of parental and spousal consortium to claimants Medical Expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- 40,000x3 (1,20,000/-) 15,000/- Total compensation awarded Rs. 56,98,712/- 13. In view of the aforesaid calculation, the total compensation comes to Rs 56,98,712/-, however, since this Court has already held that the deceased herself was equally negligent in causing the accident, as such 9 after making 50% from the above amount, the claimants are held entitled for a total compensation of Rs 28,49,356/-. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 19,87,836/-, after deducting the same the claimants/appellants are entitled for enhanced amount of Rs. 8,61,520/-. This additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till realization. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and respondent No. 03 is directed to pay compensation to appellants/claimants within 03 months from today, failing which 9% interest would be applicable. With the aforesaid direction, the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge U.K. Raju