1 2025:CGHC:57579 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1206 of 2023 The New India Assurance Company Limited Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office-Akashvani Road Ist Floor, M.M. Tower, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Raghunandan Shrivastva S/o - Late Neelkanth Shrivastva, Aged About 69 Years R/o Village Pandeguda, P.O. Chingpal, P.S. Darbha, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Mula Devi Shrivastava, W/o Raghunandan Shrivastva, Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Pandeguda, P.O. Chingpal, P.S. Darbha, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Sunita Devi Shrivastava, W/o Gupteshwar Shrivastva, Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Pandeguda, P.O. Chingpal, P.S. Darbha, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sandeep Shrivastava, S/o- Gupteshwar Shrivastava, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Pandeguda, P.O. Chingpal, P.S. Darbha, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 5 - Gaurav Shrivastava, S/o Gupteshwar Shrivastava, Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Pandeguda, P.O. Chingpal, P.S. Darbha, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.11.27 11:11:24 +0530 2 6 - Rakesh Vetti, S/o- Denga Vetti, Aged About 36 Years R/o Vettipara, Bade Kilepal, P.S. Kodenar, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. (Driver -Owner) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 - 5 : Mr. Utkarsh Patel on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocates For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 26.11.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the impugned award dated 21/03/2023 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 321/2021, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 17,19,950/- as compensation to respondents No. 1 to 5/claimants and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant/Insurance Company. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the Claims Tribunal has erred in 3 fastening the liability of payment of compensation upon the Insurance Company as there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and further the Claims Tribunal has also erred in applying the multiplier of 14 rather it ought to have applied the multiplier of 13. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned award and submit that the compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 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. So far as the plea of contributory negligence is concerned, it has not been found proved by the Claims Tribunal as the eye-witness to the incident namely Sanjay Shrivastava (A.W.-2) has clearly stated before the Court that while the auto driven by the deceased was parked in a stationary position, the offending vehicle, which was being driven by respondent No. 6 herein in a rash and negligent manner, came and dashed him due to which deceased suffered injuries and died. Thus, the appellant/Insurance Company has failed to prove the plea of contributory negligence. 4 6. Similarly, while computing the amount of compensation, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 14 as the age of deceased at the time of the accident was 42 years on the basis of the postmortem report (Ex. P/3), which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. I do not find any merit in this appeal warranting interference with the impugned award. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet