Page No.1 of 6 In MAC-1475-2022 2025:CGHC:47717 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1475 of 2022 [Arising out of award dt. 27.09.2022, passed in Claim Case No.74 of 2021 (Guharam Kamro & other v. Vishnu Van & others) by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (CG)] 1 - Guharam Kamro S/o Parasram Aged About 58 Years Occupation Labour, R/o Village Jenjra, Tahsil And Police Station Kakghora, District Korba (C.G.) 2 - Bharat Singh S/o Guharam Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Jenjra, Tahsil And Police Station Kakghora, District Korba (C.G.) ... Appellants/ Claimants Versus 1 - Vishnu Ven S/o Sukhchain Prasad Van Aged About 49 Years R/o. Village Indira Vihar Colony, Q.No. 365, Transport Nagar Korba (C.G.) Permanent Address R/o Village Amradha, Police Station Majhauli, District Jabalpur (M.P.) (Vehicle Driver) 2 - Yogesh Kumar Jain Through Jain Traders, T.P. Nagar Korba, Tahsil And District Korba (C.G.) (Vehicle Owner) 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Commercial Complex Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Commercial Complex Block D, T.P. Nagar Korba (C.G.) (Insurance Company) ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellants : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No.1-2 : Mr. Brijesh Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 6 In MAC-1475-2022 Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 16.09.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dt. 27.09.2022, passed in Claim Case No.74 of 2021 (Guharam Kamro & other v. Vishnu Van & others) by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (CG), whereby though learned Claims Tribunal has calculated a total sum of Rs.6,57,800/- as compensation for the death of Sammal Kunwar, but deducted 50% amount towards contributory negligence on the part of the appellant No.01 and has awarded a sum of Rs.3,28,900/- alongwith interest @ 6% PA from the date of claim application till its actual realization, which amount is held to be payable by the respondent No.03- Insurance Company). 2. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. Learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month which should be Rs.8,960/- as per Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, as the deceased used to work as Manson. Furthermore, though there was no evidence available on record with regard to the contributory Page No.3 of 6 In MAC-1475-2022 negligence on the part of the appellant No.01 herein, yet, the learned Claims Tribunal deducted 50% amount for the same, which is per se illegal and bad in law. As such, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced by setting aside the finding with regard to the contributory negligence on the part of the appellant No.01 herein. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the Tribunal is justified in assessing the compensation on notional basis and the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. It is vehemently submitted on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company that the learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely justified in deducting 50% amount toward contributory negligence on the part of the appellant No.01, as there is ample evidence available on record with regard to the same i.e. spot map (Ex.P/05) etc. As such, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. In the instant case, though the learned Claims Tribunal has deducted 50% amount on the ground of contributory negligence on the part of appellant No.01, but a careful perusal of the record would show that no clinching evidence with regard to the same is available Page No.4 of 6 In MAC-1475-2022 on record. Though, in the accident in question, the deceased was sitting as pillion rider on the motor-cycle which was driven by the appellant No.01, but there is no evidence available on record to show that in the accident in question the appellant No.01 (driver of the vehicle in which the deceased was sitting) was also negligent. Even, during the course of examination of the appellant No.01, who is the eye-witness to the incident, no question has been asked from him to hold or to state that he was also negligent at the time of accident in question. Furthermore, the spot map (Ex.P/05), which has been heavily relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Insurance Company, is also of no use for the simple reason that the author of the said spot map has not been examined before the Claims Tribunal to prove the said spot map. As such, in light of the aforesaid reasoning, the learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in deducting 50% amount on the ground of contributory negligence on the part of appellant No.01 and, the findings recorded with the regard to the same are liable to be and are hereby set aside. The appellants are held entitled to get full amount of compensation. It is held accordingly. 6. Now the next question would be whether the learned Claims tribunal has rightly calculated the amount of compensation payable to the appellants/claimants ? 7. Admittedly, the learned Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly Page No.5 of 6 In MAC-1475-2022 income of deceased to be Rs.6,000/-, however, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of the deceased should be Rs.8,960/- PM (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time). Even otherwise, no amount has been awarded on the head of loss of filial consortium for the appellant No.02, for which, he is entitled for Rs.44,000/-. 8. 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 1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 3 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs.6000/- x 12 = Rs.72,000/- Rs.8,960/- x 12 = Rs.1,07,520/- 2. Future Prospect + 10% (i.e. Rs.7200/-) = Rs.79,200/- + 10% (i.e. Rs.10,752/-) = Rs.1,18,272/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 (Rs.26,400/-) = Rs.52,800/- (-) 1/3 (i.e. Rs.39,424) = Rs.78,848/- 4. Multiplier (x) 11 = (x) 11 = 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 Page No.6 of 6 In MAC-1475-2022 Rs. 5,80,800/- Rs.8,67,328/- 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- 6. Funeral Expenses Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- 7. Loss of Consortium (for appellant No.1) Rs. 44,000/- Rs. 44,000/- 8. Loss of consortium (for appellant No.2) NIL Rs.44,000/- 9. 50% amount deducted towards contributory negligence (-) 50% of Rs.6,57,800/- = Rs.3,28,900/- Nil Total Rs.3,28,900/- Rs.9,88,328/- 9. Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.3,28,900/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.9,88,328/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.3,28,900/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.6,59,428/-. The concerned respondents are directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 10. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if