1 2025:CGHC:18611 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1418 of 2018 National Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd, Office- Mainu Complex, Kosabadi, Tehsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh, Through Authorized Signatory For The National Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office Bilaspur Towers Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1. Smt. Surjo Devi Wd/o Late Sanatan Aged About 60 Years R/o Krishnanagar Deepika, Police Station Deepika, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2. Archana D/o Late Sanatan Aged About 19 Years R/o Krishnanagar Deepika, Police Station Deepika, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3. Minor Jamuna D/o Late Sanatan Aged About 16 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Surjo Devi Wd/o Late Sanatan (R- 1), R/o Krishnanagar Deepika, Police Station Deepika, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4. Manjeet S/o Sanatan Aged About 15 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Surjo Devi Wd/o Late Sanatan (R- 1), R/o Krishnanagar Deepika, Police Station Deepika, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.04.28 18:28:17 +0530 2 5. Smt Lila Yadav Wd/o Ranjeet Yadav Aged About 24 Years D/o Sonasay Gop, R/o Barusahi, Madda Police Station Komar Dungi, District Chaibasa, Jharkhand.................. (Deceased’s Widow) 6. Manoj Yadav S/o Parmeshwar Prasad Aged About 25 Years R/o Rampur Basti, Police Substation Rampur, Korba, Chhattisgarh...................(Driver) 7. Umashankar Yadav S/o Ramprasad Yadav Aged About 31 Years R/o Devpahari, Police Station Balco Nagar Tehsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh....................(Owner) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. B. N. Nande, Advocate For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr. Prahlad Shriwas, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order on Board 24.04.2025 1. This is an insurer’s appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the award dated 18.05.2018 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, Korba (C.G.) in Claim Case No.07/2016. 2. The gist of claim before the Claims Tribunal was that on 12.12.2015 at about 5:45 p.m. deceased Ranjit Yadav along with Nityuttam and Biju Sardar were coming from Korba to Deepika on a Honda Dream motorcycle. When they reached near Ganganagar on Korba-Deepika bypass road, the offending vehicle i.e. Scorpio bearing registration No. CG 12 AE 9299 driven by respondent No. 6 Manoj Yadav in a rash and negligent manner, coming from the opposite direction hit their motorcycle, as a result of which pillion riders Nityattam and Biju Sardar thrown out while driver of the motorcycle Ranjit Yadav sustained grievous injuries and died on the 3 spot. The claimants (respondents 1 to 4) who are the mother and siblings of the deceased filed a claim application before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.72,50,000/- in which Smt. Leela Yadav, wife of the deceased was made a respondent. Learned Claims Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence available on record, vide impugned award, awarded total compensation of Rs.10,97,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum, from the date of application till its realization, in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased (respondents 1 to 5) for their irreparable loss, in which, the Insurance Company has been held liable for payment of compensation, against which this appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company for exoneration from its liability. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company submits that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as the accident occurred due to head-on-collision between the motorcycle, on which three persons were riding without wearing helmets and the offending vehicle, which shows that there was some amount of negligence on the part of the deceased also. Hence, the insurance terms and conditions have been violated and the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. He further submits that the future prospects should be 40% of the income instead of 50% as wrongly held by the Tribunal. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the legal representatives is excessive and the same needs to be reduced suitably. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 (claimants) opposes the submission made by the counsel for appellant and submits that in the facts and circumstances of case, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not require any interference. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4 6. The claimants have examined eye witness Nityuttam as AW-3 who was riding pillion on the motorcycle along with the deceased. No witness has been examined on behalf of the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Learned Tribunal has accepted the statement of pillion rider Nityuttam (AW-3) who has clearly stated that on the date of incident when he, Birju Sardar and deceased Ranjit Yadav were coming to Deepika, near Ganganagar, driver Manoj Yadav driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently hit their motorcycle from the front due to which he and Birju were thrown out whereas Ranjeet died on the spot. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the eye witness who was traveling along with the deceased as a pillion rider. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Siddique (supra) and also this High Court in the case of Kaliram Sahu & Ors. Vs. Chamanlal Dewangan & Ors, reported in 2014 (1) CGLJ 431 held that three persons were riding a motorcycle is not sufficient for contributory negligence unless it is established that it contributed to the accident. In the present case, there is no evidence available on record to show that the accident took place on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle. Charge sheet has also been filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, the ground of contributory negligence raised by the Insurance Company stands negated. Further, the Tribunal is fully justified in concluding that travelling with three persons on the motorcycle was not a violation of the insurance conditions of the offending vehicle Scorpio. 7. As regards quantum, from the evidence presented by the claimants side, it is clear that the age of deceased was 25 years and he was a non-salaried person. Therefore, the future prospects would be 40% instead of 50% as wrongly held by the Tribunal. However, in the present case, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000 per month. The accident occurred on 12.12.2015. As per the notification by Labour Department, the 5 minimum wages of even an unskilled labour at that point of time was Rs.5860 per month i.e. 70,320 per annum. If 40% of the income is added towards future prospects, the amount comes to Rs.98,448. There are 5 legal representatives of the deceased. So deduction would be 1/4th of the income and after deduction, the amount comes to Rs.73836. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also considering the age of the deceased, the multiplier would be 18 and after applying the said multiplier, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs.13,29,048/-. In addition, as per 'Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189, The claimants would be entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards love & affection and spousal consortium for wife, totalling Rs.2,00,000. They are also entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses. As such, on being calculated as a whole, the compensation amount would be more than the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 8. In such a situation, the argument of the Insurance Company that the Tribunal has awarded excessive compensation in favour of the claimants, is not acceptable. 9. Accordingly, the appeal of the Insurance Company being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge Khatai