1 2025:CGHC:17308 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 406 of 2018 1 - Branch Manager The New India Assurance Company Limited, Branch Office SADA Complex, Transport Nagar, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh, Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office 2nd Floor, Rama Trade Center, In Front Of Rajeev Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Ragini Soni Wd/o Late Guru Prasad Soni Aged About 48 Years Caste Sonar, R/o Aakashvani Colony Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rishabh Soni S/o Late Guru Prasad Soni Aged About 22 Years Caste Sonar, R/o Aakashvani Colony Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ritik Soni S/o Late Guru Prasad Soni Aged About 17 Year And 11 Month, Minor Through Mother Smt. Ragini Soni, Wd/o Late Guru Prasad Soni, Aged About 48 Years (Res. No. 1) Caste Sonar, R/o Aakashvani Colony Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chetna Soni D/o Late Guru Prasad Soni Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Mother Smt. Ragini Soni, Wd/o Late Guru Prasad Soni, Aged About 48 Years (Res. No. 1) Caste Sonar, R/o Aakashvani Colony Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.04.17 10:26:35 +0530 2 5 - Ramvyas Soni S/o Late Ram Sakal Aged About 70 Years Caste Sonar, R/o Aakashvani Colony Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Ram Singh S/o Shivcharan Gond Aged About 28 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Village Kharsura, P.S. Vishrampur, Tahsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Smt. Anju Sinha W/o Shri Saroj Sinha Aged About 40 Years Occupation Transporter, R/o Quarter No. 1b-170 Vishrampur, P.S. Vishrampur, Tahsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 5 : Mr. Rahul K. Mishra, Advocate. For Respondents No. 6 & 7 : Mr. Rishi Sahu, Advocate. MAC No. 1663 of 2017 1 - Smt. Ragini Soni W/o Late Guru Prasad Soni Aged About 48 Years Caste Sonar, R/o Akashwani Colony, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rishabh Soni, S/o Late Guru Prasad Soni, Aged About 22 Years Caste Sonar, R/o Akashwani Colony, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ritik Soni, S/o Late Guru Prasad Soni, Aged About 17 Years And 11 Months, Minor Represented Through Mother And Legal Guardian Smt. Ragini Soni, Caste Sonar, R/o Akashwani Colony, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chetna Soni D/o Late Guru Prasad Soni, Aged About 14 Years Minor Represented Through Mother And Legal Guardian Smt. Ragini Soni, Caste Sonar, R/o Akashwani Colony, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellants Versus 3 1 - Ram Singh S/o Shivcharan Gond, Aged About 28 Years Occupation Vehicle Driver, R/o Village Kharsura, Police Station Vishrampur, Tahsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Anju Sinha, W/o Shri Saroj Sinha, Aged About 40 Years Occupation Transporter , R/o Quarter No. 1 B /170, Vishrampur, Police Station Vishrampur, Tahsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Branch Manager, New India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Sada Complex, Transport Nagar, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ramvyas Soni, S/o Ram Sakal, Aged About 70 Years R/o Akashwani Colony, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Rahul K. Mishra, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Rishi Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (15 .0 4 .202 5 ) 1. Since both appeals arise out of the same order dated 29.08.2017 passed by learned 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District - Surajpur (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 144/2016, they are being heard and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. As against the compensation of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- claimed by the claimants by filing a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) for death of deceased Guru Prasad Soni in the motor accident on 29.06.2016 at about 9:30 pm; the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 55,68,397/- 3. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence, held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving 4 of offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG-15-C-1060 by its driver Ram Singh; deceased Guru Prasad Soni sustained grievous injuries on her body in the accident; the tribunal on the basis of evidence and Form-16 Ex.P-22 for the assessment year 2016-17, assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 35,775/- per month; the insurance company held liable to pay the compensation and a total compensation of Rs. 55,68,397/- has awarded on the basis of following calculations:- Sl.No. Heads Compensation 01 Yearly income of the deceased (35,775x12) Rs. 4,29,300/- 02 Yearly income after deduction 5% income tax (4,29,300-16,408) Rs. 4,12,892 03 Total annual income after adding 30% future prospect (412892+123867) Rs. 5,36,759/- 04 Annual dependency after deduction ¼ income of the deceased towards personal expenses (536759-134189.75) Rs. 4,02,569/- 05 Towards total loss of dependency after applying multiplier of 13 (402569x13) Rs. 52,33,397/- 06 Rs. 50,000/- each towards loss of love and affection to claimants No. 2 to 4 and 5/sons, daughter and father of the deceased Rs. 2,00,000/- 07 Spousal consortium to claimant No.1/wife of the deceased Rs. 1,00,000/- 08 Towards funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/- 09 Towards loss of estate Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 55,68,397/- Hence, MAC No. 406/2018 has been filed by insurance company for reduction and contributory negligence and MAC No. 1663/2017 has been filed by claimants for enhancement. MAC No. 406/2018 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent No. 6/driver of the vehicle has deposed before the learned 5 Tribunal that at the relevant time of the accident, vehicle trailer was parked on the left side and he got down to check the tyres, at that time, the deceased by driving motorcycle rashly and negligently dashed the trailer from behind. The trailer’s light and indicator were on at that time, The trailer was having Radium Patti at the back of the vehicle. Also, as per the MVI reports, the trailer’s front side indicator and light were not damaged whereas the back side indicator was damaged indicating that had the trailer dashed the motorcycle from behind. Therefore, the alleged accident was caused due to sole negligence on the part of the deceased. He further submits that the learned Tribunal awarded compensation amount on very higher side and looking to the sole negligence on the part of deceased and facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal ought to have held that the deceased was at least 50% negligent in causing the alleged accident and accordingly ought to have awarded compensation amount. He also submits that the awarded compensation amount on other conventional heads is on the higher side which needs to be reduced suitably. Hence, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 5 opposes the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 6 & 7 supported the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondents and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 8. In this case, Independent, eyewitness of the case Manmat Pachhad (AW-2) has supported the case and has stated that he saw the accident taking place and the accident was 6 caused by rash and negligent driving of the vehicle trailer No. CG-15-AC/1060 by its driver. He has also supported that the deceased Guru Prasad Soni met with the accident by the said offending vehicle. This witness has also stated that he informed the family members of the deceased from the mobile phone kept in the pocket of the deceased. The above witness has not been contradicted in the cross- examination by the appellant herein. Furthermore, documentary evidence i.e. Ex.A.-1 to Ex.A-19 (charge sheet and other documents prepared by police) have been presented by the claimants. It is also clear from the above oral evidence that the deceased was going from Ambikapur to Baikunthpur on a motor cycle, when on the way near village Ajabnagar, Ram Singh, driver of trailer No. CG-15- AC/1060, drove the said vehicle rashly and negligently and caused the accident, due to which deceased Guru Prasad Soni died on the spot. Thus, from the above documents, it is clear that on 29.06.2016, Guru Prasad Soni died in an accident in which the offending vehicle was involved which was driven by driver Ram Singh (NAW-1) in a rash and negligent manner. 9. Ram Singh (NAW-1), driver of offending vehicle has got himself examined in the court, according to the evidence of this witness, at the time of the accident, he had parked his vehicle on the left side of the road and was checking the air in the tyre and was checking it by tapping it, at the same time the deceased came on a motorcycle and hit the trailer vehicle from behind and it fell. This witness has tried to say in his evidence that the deceased himself met with the accident due to his negligence, but this witness has not made any statement that a report has been lodged in the police station against the deceased for causing the accident due to negligent driving. Rather, he has accepted in cross- 7 examination that the police has filed a criminal case against him in connection with the accident. Therefore, this witness gets shattered in cross-examination and becomes unreliable. 10. The statement of independent witness Manmat Pachhad (AW-2) examined by the claimants is supported by the police charge sheet, whereas the statement of the driver of the offending vehicle, Ram Singh (NAW-1), is not supported by any other evidence. Hence, finding the statement of Manmat Pachhad (AW-2) reliable, the tribunal has found rash and negligence on the part of the driver, Ram Singh (NAW-1) of the offending vehicle. 11. Hence, the contributory negligence of the deceased towards the non-applicants has not been proved in the case. Therefore, it is not proved that the deceased has contributed to the accident. As such, the finding of the Tribunal is based on the proper appreciation of the evidence available on record which does not call for any interference and is liable to be dismissed. M AC No. 1663/2017 12. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the awarded compensation by the claims Tribunal is on the lower side which needs to be enhanced suitably. Hence, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 13. Learned counsel for the insurance company opposed the prayer made by counsel for the appellants and also submitted that the awarded compensation on the other conventional heads is on the higher side which needs to be reduced suitably. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8 15. Looking to the material available on record particularly, Form-16 Ex.A-22 for the assessment year 2016-17 of the deceased, the finding of the claims tribunal that the deceased was withdrawing a salary of Rs. 35,775/- per month is correct. Similarly, the calculation of 30% future prospect is also correct as the deceased was aged about 46 years at the time of accident. Further, the deduction of ¼ towards personal expenses is also correct as the claimants are 5 in number and the multiplier of 13 applied by the tribunal is also found proper as the deceased was aged about 46 years, at that particular time of accident. 16. So far as the compensation with regard to other conventional heads is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 50,000/- each towards loss of love and affection to claimants No. 2 to 4 and 5 who are sons, daughter and the father of the deceased, Rs. 1,00,000/- to claimant No.1/wife of the deceased towards spousal consortium, Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of estate, thus, a total compensation of Rs. 3,35,000/- towards conventional heads has been awarded. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it inappropriate, and therefore, there is no need to reduce or enhance the awarded compensation on the other conventional heads. 17. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussions, the appeals i.e. MAC No. 406/2018 and MAC No. 1663/2017 of the appellant(s) are hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge H.L. Sahu