1 2025:CGHC:54426 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 96 of 2024 1. Smt. Pyari Sahu W/o Late Nandkumar Sahu, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Bahera, Post Kusmi, Tahsil And Police Station Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 2. Horilal Sahu, S/o Late Nandkumar Sahu, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Bahera, Post Kusmi, Tahsil And Police Station Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 3. Vijay Kumar Sahu, S/o Late Nandkumar Sahu, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Bahera, Post Kusmi, Tahsil And Police Station Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Dharmendra Singh Meravi @ Bablu S/o Balveer Singh Meravi, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Boda (Gadhi), Tahsil Baihar, Police Station Gadhi, District Ballaghat (M.P.) (Driver Of Bolero Pickup No. M.P. /51/g/1075) 2. Balveer Singh Meravi, S/o Beniram Meravi, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Boda (Gadhi), Tahsil Baihar, Police Station Gadhi, District Balaghat (M.P.) (Owner Of Bloero Pickup No. M.P./51/g/1075) 3. The Manager, Maigma H.D.I. General Insurance Company, Third New Insurance Company, Third New Ground Floor Chirauddin Ward, Near Rajkumar College, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Pin No. 492001, (Insurance Company Of Bolero Pickup No. M.P. /51/g/1075, Policy No. P0023200014/4103/100883 Date From 09-08-2022 To 08-08- 2023) ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.11.11 14:13:59 +0530 2 For Appellants : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.1&2 : None, though served For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 7-11-2025 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/ claimants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 assailing the award passed by First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara in Claim Case No. 97/2023 dated 10.11.2023 whereby Claims Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs.4,73,240/- with interest @ 6% on account of death of Nandkumar Sahu. 2) Facts of the present case are that on 9.4.2023, Nandkumar Sahu and Yamini Sahu were going to Village Devari on motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-25-5721 and when they reached Village Piproladih, the offending vehicle bearing registration No. MP-51-G-1075 being driven by respondent No. 1 in rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle from rear. In the accident, Nandkumar Sahu and Yamini Sahu sustained grievous injuries and died during the course of treatment. 3) Claimants who are the widow and sons of the deceased Nandkumar Sahu, moved claim application and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.57,00,000/-; Claims Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and award impugned was 3 passed wherein Claims Tribunal held the deceased guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 50% on the ground that deceased did not have valid and effective driving license on the date of accident. 4) Learned counsel for the appellants/ claimants submits Claims Tribunal failed to award compensation towards future prospects and separate compensation towards loss of consortium to the sons of the deceased. He further submits that Claims Tribunal erred in law in holding the deceased guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 50% in absence of any direct or corroborative evidence. He contends that the driver and owner of the offending vehicle as well as the Insurance Company failed to lead evidence in this regard. He further contends that no witness was examined to prove the factum of contributory negligence, therefore Claims Tribunal should not have held the deceased guilty of contributory negligence. He prays to enhance the compensation accordingly. 5) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that Claims Tribunal is justified in holding the deceased guilty of contributory negligence as he was not in possession of a valid or effective driving license on the date of accident. She prays that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 4 7) Evidently, the offending vehicle dashed the motorcycle from rear but Claims Tribunal has held the deceased who was driving the motorcycle, guilty of contributory negligence only on the ground that he was not in possession of a valid or effective driving license. Admittedly, no evidence was led by the parties to prove the factum of contributory negligence. It is well settled principle of law that in absence of any direct or corroborative evidence on record, it cannot be assumed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. In the present case also, it cannot be presumed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by the deceased. 8) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Meera Devi and Another Vs. Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and Others1 while dealing with the similar issue in para 10 held as under :- “to prove the contributory negligence, there must be cogent evidence. In the instant case, there is no specific evidence to prove that the incident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased scooterist. In absence of any cogent evidence to prove the plea of contributory negligence, the said doctrine of the common law cannot be applied in the present case. We are, thus of the view that the reasoning given by the High Court has no basis and the compensation awarded by the tribunal was just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case.” In view of the discussion made herein-above, the findings 1. 2014 (4) SCC 511 5 recorded by the Claims Tribunal with regard to contributory negligence are hereby set aside. 9) With regard to quantum of compensation, it appears that Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards future prospects to the claimants and separate compensation towards loss of consortium to sons of the deceased. However, Claims Tribunal has assessed the notional monthly income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wage matrix applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh at the relevant time and has applied appropriate multiplier and rightly deducted 1/3rd dependency towards personal and living expenses of the deceased taking into account his age. 10) Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, material available on record and in the light of judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Meera Devi (supra) and National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi & others2, this Court is recomputing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Annual Income Rs. 9,960 x 12 = Rs. 1,19,520/- Rs. 9,960 x 12 = Rs. 1,19,520/- 2. Annual Income adding Future Prospect NIL Rs.1,31,472/- (@10%) 3. Annual income after Deduction towards Rs.79,680/- Rs.87,648/- (@1/3) 2. (2017) 16 SCC 680 6 personal expenses (@1/3) 4. Annual Income after applying Multiplier Rs. 8,76,480/- (@11) Rs.9,64,128/- (@11) 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000 + Rs. 80,000 = Rs. 1,20,000/- (wife + two sons) 8. Deduction towards Contributory Negligence Rs. 4,73,240/- (@50%) NIL TOTAL Rs. 4,73,240/- Rs. 11,14,128/- 11) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.4,73,240/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.11,14,128/-. Hence, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 6,40,888/-. The Insurance Company is directed to make payment of additional compensation assessed herein-above within period of 60 days with interest @ 9% p.a. from date of application, failing which, the said amount shall carry an interest @ 18% p.a. 12) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a