1 2025:CGHC:45907 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1061 of 2022 1 - Kirtan Chandra, W/o. Late Balram Chandra, Aged About 34 Years, R/o. Darrabhata, Police Station Baradwar, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Presently Residing At Champa, Police Station & Tahsil Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ayush Chandra, S/o. Late Balram Chandra, Aged About 13 Years, Minor Through Guardian Mother Kirtan Chandra, W/o. Late Balram Chandra, R/o. Darrabhata, Police Station Baradwar, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Presently Residing At Champa, Police Station & Tahsil Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Piyush Chandra, S/o. Late Balram Chandra, Aged About 7 Years, Minor Through Guardian Mother Kirtan Chandra, W/o. Late Balram Chandra, R/o. Darrabhata, Police Station Baradwar, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Presently Residing At Champa, Police Station & Tahsil Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - Bhagat Ram Chandra, S/o. Shri Ramnath Chandra, Aged About 65 Years, R/o. Darrabhata, Police Station Baradwar, District Janjgir ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.09.11 17:45:31 +0530 2 Champa (C.G.) Presently Residing At Champa, Police Station & Tahsil Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 5 - Kapil Bai Chandra, W/o. Shri Bhagat Ram Chandra, Aged About 59 Years, R/o. Darrabhata, Police Station Baradwar, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Presently Residing At Champa, Police Station & Tahsil Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Yashwant Kumar Sahu, S/o. Shri Firat Ram Sahu, R/o. Amgaon, Police Station & Tahsil Jaijaipur, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle No. CG-11-AW-7045) 2 - Tata A.I.G. General Ins. Co. Ltd. Building No.9/1, Second Floor, Behind Khandelwal Motors Adjoining With Treshar Iceland Mall, M.G. Road, Indore (M.P.) (Insurer Of Vehicle No. CG-11-AW-7045) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 09.09.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, challenging the 3 impugned award dated 01.07.2022 passed by learned First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir in MACT No.80/2021, whereby the claim application of the claimants/appellants has been allowed and an amount of Rs. 6,44,000/- has been awarded to the claimants as compensation along-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application for the death of Balram Chandra, who died in the road accident while driving the motorcycle which collided with the motorcycle owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2 and both the drivers of the motorcycles died in the accident leading to filing of the claim application. 2. The learned Claims Tribunal, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, found proved the plea of contributory negligence taken by the insurance company and deducted half of the compensation amount towards the contributory negligence of the deceased for which the present appeal has been preferred for quantum of compensation. 3. Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that the plea of contributory negligence has not been proved and Ex.D-6 has also not been proved by calling the Investigating Officer. Therefore, since the plea of contributory negligence has not been proved, the claimants are entitled for full compensation. He would further submit that the income has been 4 taken as Rs.6,000/- per month whereas it should be Rs. 9,200/- per month as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh for unskilled labour and the parental consortium and filial consortium have also not been granted to the claimants. Therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal may be enhanced suitably. 4. Mr. Saurabh Gupta, learned counsel for the insurance company/ respondent No.2 would support the impugned award and submits that the contributory negligence has not been proved, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records minutely. 6. The insurance company has taken a plea of contributory negligence in paragraph 10 of the written statement filed before the Claims Tribunal stating that the accident had occurred on account of negligence of Balram Chandra, as he was driving the vehicle without wearing helmet and therefore, he is also liable for contributory negligence. In order to prove the fact of contributory negligence, one law officer Gaurav Geete has been examined on behalf of the insurance company, who has proved the documents 5 Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-23 and most of the documents are the documents of criminal case, as the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. has been registered against deceased Balram Chandra and Ex.D-6 is the map, which has been heavily relied upon, but surprisingly the Investigating Officer who has prepared Ex.D-6 in other criminal case has not been examined. Therefore, the documents relating to criminal case particularly Ex.D-13 in which the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. has been registered against the deceased has not been proved in accordance with law. 7. The learned Claims Tribunal has taken the document Ex.D-6 from those documents and found proved that the accident had taken in the middle of the road and both the deceased could have avoided the accident and therefore, held that the deceased was liable for the contributory negligence. Eye-witness Jakir Khan (PW-2) has clearly stated before the Tribunal that Ghanshyam Das was driving the motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.11-AW- 7045 rashly & negligently and dashed Balram Chandra by which he suffered grievous injuries and died and no specific question has been raised to demonstrate that deceased Balram Chandra was also negligently driving the motorcycle and contributed the accident resulting into death. As such, from the statement of eye-witness, it has not been established that the deceased was also negligent in driving the vehicle and contributed the accident. 6 8. So far as Ex.D-6 and other records of registration of offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. is concerned, the Investigating Officer who has recorded Ex.D-2 has not been examined, therefore, it has not been proved and furthermore, mere filing of the documents of criminal case would not amount to proof of the documents unless author of the document i.e. Investigating Officer has been examined before the Court. Therefore, the reliance placed on those documents may not prove the plea of contributory negligence. One law officer of the insurance company has been examined but he is not the author of those documents and while Ex.D-2 & Ex.D- 6 itself have not been proved, the plea of contributory negligence has also not been proved. (See: Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v Smt. Seema Pandey & Others)1 . 9. However, the Claims Tribunal relying upon the document Ex.D-6 proceeded to hold that the deceased was also negligent, but in absence of examination of the author of Ex.D-6, it could not have been relied upon by the Tribunal to hold that the deceased was also contributory negligent in driving the vehicle. 10. Now, the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased Balram Chandra to be Rs.6,000/- per month, however, in the opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour 1 2014(1) C.G.L.J. 270) 7 Commissioner, Chhattisgarh for unskilled labour, the monthly income of the deceased should be Rs.9,200/- per month, which comes to Rs. 1,10,400/- per annum. 11. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi 2, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors3 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 4 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court Income as per minimum wages Rs. 6,000 x 12 = Rs. 72,000/- Rs. 9,200 x 12 = Rs. 1,10,400/- Future prospects @ 40% Rs.28,800 + 72,000 = Rs. 1,00,800/- Rs. 44,160 + 1,10,400 = Rs. 1,54,560/- Deduction of ¼ towards personal expenses Rs.1,00,800 – 25,200 = Rs.75,600/- Rs. 1,54,560 – 38,640 = Rs.1,15,920/- Multiplier of 15 Rs. 11,34,000/- and after deduction of 50% towards contributory negligence, the amount comes to Rs.5,67,000/- Rs. 17,38,800/- Loss of spousal consortium - Rs. 44,000/- Loss of parental consortium - Rs. 44,000 x 2 = Rs. 88,000/- Loss of filial consortium (+) Rs. 77,000/- for last rites & filial consortium Rs. 44,000 x 2 = Rs. 88,000/- 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 3 (2009) 6 SCC 121 4 (2018) 18 SCC 130 8 Loss of Estate - Rs. 16,500/- Funeral Expenses - Rs. 16,500/- Total Rs. 6,44,000/- Rs. 19,91,800/- 12. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 11,34,000/- (Less 50% towards contributory negligent Rs. 6,44,000/-) awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 19,91,800/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 6,44,000/-, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 13,47,800/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 13. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok