1 2025:CGHC:30992 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1478 of 2018 • The New India Insurance (Correct Name Assurance) Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office - 1st Floor, Rama Trade Centre, Infront Of Rajeev Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road , Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Hyva Truck No. CG-10-R- 7888). ... Appellant versus 1. Ramkumar Jaiswal, S/o Late Asharam Jaiswal, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village Sonbandha, Post Dhuma, Police Station & Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Claimant). 2. Dukalhin Bai, W/o Ramkumar Jaiswal, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village Sonbandha, Post Dhuma, Police Station & Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Claimant). 3. Virendra Jaiswal, S/o Ramkumar Jaiswal, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Sonbandha, Post Dhuma, Police Station & Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Claimant). 4. Shiv Singh Sonwani, S/o Awadh Singh Sonwani, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village Dhourabhatha, Police Station Hirri, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Hyva Truck No. CG-10-R- 7888) (Non-Applicant No.1). 5. Smt. Nidhi Rajpal, W/o Shri Kunal Rajpal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Panjabi Mohalla, Ward No. 2, Police Station & Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Another Address, Vishal Saluja Aged About 35 Years, S/o Harmindar Saluja (Pai Saluja) R/o Punjabi Mohalla Najar Lalpara, Kirti Nagar Sirgitti, Police Station Sirgitti, Tahsil & District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Hyva Truck No. CG-10-R-7888) (Non Applicant No.2). ... Respondents 2 (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Ms. Swati Agrawal, counsel appears on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 07/07/2025 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the 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 22.06.2018 passed by the Seventh Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.228/2017, whereby the learned Tribunal while allowing the claim in part has awarded the total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.12,39,600/- with 8% interest per annum in favour of the claimants from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 07.04.2017, when the deceased Chandrahas Kumar Jaiswal was going to his Village Sonbandha on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.CG-10-S-3246 and when he reached Lamkena Mainroad, then a truck bearing Registration No.CG-10-R-7888 driving rashly and negligently by the non applicant No.1 hit the motorcycle of the deceased, as a result of which he died on the spot. Thereafter, a case was registered against the non applicant No.1 and the charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate concerned. Subsequently, a claim petition was filed by the claimants before the learned Claims Tribunal who are the family members of the deceased, which was partly allowed and Rs.12,39,600/- was awarded in favour of the claimants 3 payable by the appellant insurance company, against which the present appeal has been filed by the appellant insurance company. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company submits that the deceased was unmarried person and as such deduction should be 1/2 of the income of the deceased, however the Tribunal has deducted personal income of the deceased to the tune of 1/3rd share, which is not in accordance with law. Further, it is submitted that the driver was not having valid driving licence at the time of the accident and the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of both the parties. However, the Tribunal has not considered this aspect and the income was also wrongly considered without there being any proof of the same. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Tribunal has rightly passed the award, which does not call for any interference and it does not require to be reconsidered. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the rival submissions of both the parties. 6. From perusal of the award, it shows that so far as deduction of 1/3rd share for personal expenses is concerned, according to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma (SMT) and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. the deceased being unmarried, the deduction in respect of the personal income of the deceased should have been 1/2 which has been deducted as 1/3, which is not in accordance with law. Accordingly, the deduction for personal income is reconsidered, 4 therefore, it is directed to be calculated as 1/2 from the annual income of the deceased. Since the annual income of the deceased is Rs.1,00,800 and after deducting 50% of the said amount, the total income of the deceased is Rs.50,400/ and after applying multiplier of 18 in the said income, the total is Rs.907200/- (50400x18). The claimants were not awarded any amount towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, therefore, Rs.30,000/- (Rs.15000/- + 15000/-) is awarded. Therefore, now the claimants are entitled to the total compensation of Rs.9,37,000/- (Rs.907200+30000). 7. The appeal is accordingly modified and the other conditions of the award shall be same. The claimants are held entitled to get the compensation, as stated above. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge DEEPTI JHA NIRALA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA NIRALA