1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 742 of 2018 1 - United India Insurance Co.Ltd Through Its Branch Manager, Branch Office-Old Bus Stand Road, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) (Insurer Of Tractor), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant versus 1 - Yatindra Kumar Janghel S/o Late Shailendra Kumar Janghel, Aged About 21 Years R/o Vill.- Bichhitola, P.O. Ramatola, P.S. And Tah. Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chandan Kumar Janghel, S/o Late Shailendra Kumar Janghel, Aged About 20 Years R/o Vill.- Bichhitola, P.O. Ramatola, P.S. And Tah. Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Arjun Patel, S/o Falit Ram Patel, Aged About 26 Years R/o Vill.- Khadaudha, P.S. Sahaspur Lohara, Tah. Kawardha, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh).......(Driver Of Pickup), District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 4 - Babulal Yadav, S/o Ankalu Yadav, Aged About 29 Years R/o Vill.- Daihandeeh, P.S. Sahaspur Lohara, Tah. Kawardha, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh).......(Driver Of Tractor), District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Chhattisgarh 5 - Yusuf Khan, S/o. Gulam Murtaja, Aged About 34 Years R/o Vill.- Udiyakhurd, P.S. Sahaspur Lohara, Tah. Kawardha, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh).......(Owner Of Pickup), District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 6 - Hiralal, S/o Late Fulsingh, Aged About 47 Years R/o Vill.- Bachedi, P.S. Sahaspur Lohara, Tah.- Kawardha, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh)........(Owner Of Tractor), District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 7 - Branch Manager, Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Raipur (Chhattisgarh)........(Insurer Of Pickup), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 749 of 2018 1 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Branch Manager, Branch Office Old Bus Stand Road, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Tractor/non-Applicant No.6), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Goutam Bai Wd/o Late Shri Lakhan Verma Aged About 60 Years Caste Lodhi, R/o Village Bichhitola, P.O. Ramatola, P.S. And Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Applicant No.1), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Naresh Kumar Verma S/o Late Shri Lakhan Verma Aged About 44 Years Caste Lodhi, R/o Village Bichhitola, P.O. Ramatola, P.S. And 3 Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Applicant No.2), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Nand Kumar Verma S/o Late Shri Lakhan Verma Aged About 42 Years Caste Lodhi, R/o Village Bichhitola, P.O. Ramatola, P.S. And Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Applicant No.3), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Kekti Bai Verma W/o Shri Lekhram Verma Aged About 40 Years Caste Lodhi, R/o Village Bichhitola, P.O. Ramatola, P.S. And Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Applicant No.4), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 5 - Gopal Kumar Verma S/o Late Shri Lakhan Verma Caste Lodhi, R/o Village Bichhitola, P.O. Ramatola, P.S. And Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Applicant No.5), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 6 - Arjun Patel S/o Falit Ram Patel Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Khadaudha, P.S. Sahaspur Lohara, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Pickup/non-Applicant No.1), District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 7 - Babulal Yadav S/o Ankalu Yadav Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Daihandeeh, P.S. Sahaspur Lohara, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Tractor/non-Applicant No.2), District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 8 - Yusuf Khan S/o Gulam Murtaja Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Udiyakhurd, P.S. Sahaspur Lohara, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Pickup/non-Applicant No.3), District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 4 9 - Hiralal S/o Late Fulsingh Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Bachedi, P.S. Sahaspur Lohara, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Tractor/non-Applicant No.4), District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 10 - Branch Manager Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Pickup/non-Applicant No.5), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants :- Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 in MAC No. 742/2018 & for respondents No. 1 to 5 in MAC No. 749/2018 :- Ms. Khushbhu Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Respondents No. 3 & 5 in MAC No. 742/2018 & for respondents No. 6 & 8 in MAC No. 749/2018 :- Mr. Shubham Rao, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Judgment on Board 14.11.2025 1. Since both the appeals arise out of the same accident, they are clubbed together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Both the appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company against the award dated 04.12.2017 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Rajnandgaon, C.G., in Claim Case 5 No. 38/2016 (MAC No. 742/2018) and Claim Case No. 37/2016 (MAC No. 749/2018). The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 33,45,525/- with interest @ 7% per annum in MAC No. 742/2018 and Rs.3,01,120/- with interest @ 7% per annum in MAC No. 749/2018 from the date of application till realization, while fastening liability on non-applicants Nos. 1 to 6, jointly and severally. 3. As per the averments made in the claim petitions, on 05.12.2014, Lakhan Verma, while driving his motorcycle along with his daughter Smt. Ambika Janghel, was going to Kawardha. On the way, respondent No. 3, by driving the Pickup bearing registration No. CG- 09B-1334 (hereinafter called as 'offending vehicle') in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle, as a result of which, the motorcycle collided with a tractor bearing registration No. CG-07-N- 3907, which was coming from the opposite direction. Consequently, Lakhan Verma and Smt. Ambika Janghel sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same. For the death of Lakhan Verma, his wife, sons, and married daughter filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which was registered as MAC No. 749/2018. For the death of Smt. Ambika Janghel, her two sons filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which was registered as MAC No. 742/2018. At the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was owned by non- applicant No. 4- Hiralal, driven by Babulal Yadav (non-applicant No. 2) and insured with non-applicant No. 5 / Insurance Company. 6 4. The learned claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence led by both the parties, passed an award as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company in MAC No. 742/2018 submits that the income of the deceased has been wrongly assessed by the Tribunal. The pension which she was receiving on account of the death of her husband has been recalculated, and therefore the assessment of her income by the Tribunal is erroneous. It is thus contended that the impugned award suffers from infirmities and deserves to be reassessed or suitably modified. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company in MAC No. 749/2018 submits that there was contributory negligence on the part of both the vehicles involved in the accident, and therefore the liability ought to have been apportioned between the two vehicles and their respective insurance companies. Hence, the impugned award, being erroneous, deserves to be reassessed or suitably modified. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants opposes the submissions advanced by the appellant/Insurance Company in both appeals. It is submitted that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased- Smt. Ambika Janghel after considering the materials placed on record, including the pension she was receiving. With respect to MAC No. 749/2018, it is 7 contended that there is no evidence on record to establish contributory negligence on the part of the motorcycle or any other vehicle. The accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the Pickup/offending vehicle, as has been duly proved during the enquiry. Therefore, fastening liability on the owner, driver, and insurer of the offending vehicle is fully justified. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Insurance Company deserve to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. MAC No. 749/2018 - From a bare perusal of the record, it is evident that the Tribunal has rightly held that the present case is not one of contributory negligence but of composite negligence. The evidence on record clearly establishes that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, which directly caused the motorcycle to collide with the oncoming tractor. There is no material to suggest any negligence on the part of the deceased rider of the motorcycle. The Tribunal has, therefore, correctly concluded that the liability cannot be apportioned and that the appellant–Insurance Company is liable jointly and severally along with the other non-applicants. 10. MAC No. 742/2018 - So far as the assessment of income of the deceased- Smt. Ambika Janghel is concerned, the Tribunal has considered the pension amount as Rs.3,77,950/- per annum, which she was receiving at the time of her death. The appellant/Insurance 8 Company has failed to produce any contrary or reliable evidence to demonstrate that the pension was miscalculated or that the Tribunal committed any legal error in computing the income. Mere assertion of recalculation during appeal, without any substantive proof, cannot be a ground to disturb the findings of the Tribunal. 11. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has committed no error of law or fact in determining the income of the deceased or in fastening liability upon the appellant–Insurance Company. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are well reasoned and based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record. 12. Accordingly, the both the appeals filed by the Insurance Company are devoid of merit and deserve to be and are hereby dismissed. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha