1 2025:CGHC:52810 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 707 of 2020 1. Smt. Kavita Bai Wd/o. Jagannath Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Semharkachhar Tahsil Pali District Korba Chhattisgarh................Claimant, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2. Miss Rambha D/o. Late Jagannath Aged About 11 Years Minor Therefore Represented Through Smt. Kavita Bai (Mother) R/o Village Semharkachhar Tahsil Pali District Korba Chhattisgarh................Claimant, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3. Master Ayush Orkera S/o Late Jagannath Aged About 7 Years Minor Therefore Represented Through Smt. Kavita Bai (Mother) R/o Village Semharkachhar Tahsil Pali District Korba Chhattisgarh................Claimant, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4. Miss Monika D/o. Jagannath Aged About 3 Years Minor Therefore Represented Through Smt. Kavita Bai (Mother) R/o Village Semharkachhar Tahsil Pali District Korba Chhattisgarh................Claimant, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5. Master Likhil S/o. Late Jagannath Aged About 1 Years Minor Therefore Represented Through Smt. Kavita Bai (Mother) R/o Village Semharkachhar Tahsil Pali District Korba Chhattisgarh................Claimant, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 6. Smt. Sonkunwar W/o Shatrughan Singh Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Semharkachhar Tahsil Pali District Korba Chhattisgarh................Claimant, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 7. Shatrughan Singh S/o Late Vikram Singh Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Semharkachhar Tahsil Pali District Korba Chhattisgarh................Claimant, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.11.03 13:56:48 +0530 2 versus 1. Birendra Mishra S/o. Ramakant Mishra Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Pondi P.S. Manjholi District Sidhi (M.P.) (Driver Of The Vehicle)................Non Claimant, District : Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh 2. M/s A.K. Total Solushan Proprietor Yogesh Agrawal R/o. 63 Bazarpara Ward No. 12 Newara Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Vehicle)...............Non Claimant, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. H.D.F.C. Ergo Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Branch Manager Office At Hanif Napier Town Opposite Income Tax Office Jabalpur District Jabalpur (M.P.) (Insurer)...............Non Claimant, District : Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh --- Respondents WITH MAC No. 7 of 2021 1. H.D.F.C. Egro Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager Office Hanif Napier Town In Front Of Income Tax Office, Jabalpur Madhya Pradesh , At Present H.D.F.C. Egro General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Manager , Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle No. Cg-04-M.J. 9124), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 1. Smt. Mankunwar W/o Sahettar Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Semharkachhar , Tahsil Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2. Sahettar S/o Awadhram Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Semharkachhar , Tahsil Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3. Rajesh S/o Sahettar Aged About 16 Years Minor Through His Mother Smt. Mankunwar W/o Sahettar ,r/o Village Semharkachhar , Tahsil Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 4. Surendra S/o Sahettar Aged About 11 Years Minor Through His Mother Smt. Mankunwar W/o Sahettar ,r/o Village Semharkachhar , Tahsil Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5. Brajendra Mishra S/o Ramakant Mishra Aged About 22 Years R/o Podhi , Thana Manjholi, District Sidhi Madhya Pradesh. (Driver Vehicle No. Cg-04-M.J. -9124), District : Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh 6. M/s A.K. Total Solution Prop. Yogesh Agrawal R/o 63 , Bazarpara Ward , No. 12 , Neora, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WITH MAC No. 6 of 2021  H.D.F.C. Egro Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Office Hanif Napier Town, In Front Of Income Tax Office, Jabalpur, District Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh) At Present H.D.F.C. Egro General Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Manager (Claims), Devendra Nagar, Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (Insurer Of Vehicle No. Cg-04-M.J.9124), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 1. Smt. Kavita Bai W/o Late Jagannath Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Semharkachhar, Tahsil Pali, District Korba (Chhattisgarh)................(Claimant), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2. Ku. Rambha D/o Late Jagannath Aged About 11 Years Minor Hence Representing Through Her Mother Res.No.1 Smt. Kavitabai) R/o Village Semharkachhar, Tahsil Pali, District Korba (Chhattisgarh)................(Claimant), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3. Ayush Orekera S/o Late Jagannath Aged About 7 Years Minor Hence Representing Through His Mother Res.No.1 Smt. Kavitabai) R/o Village Semharkachhar, Tahsil Pali, District Korba (Chhattisgarh)................(Claimant), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 4. Ku. Monika D/o Late Jagannath Aged About 3 Years Minor Hence Representing Through Her Mother Res.No.1 Smt. Kavitabai) R/o Village Semharkachhar, Tahsil Pali, District Korba (Chhattisgarh)................(Claimant), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5. Likhil S/o Late Jagannath Aged About 1 Years Minor Hence Representing Through His Mother Res.No.1 Smt. Kavitabai) R/o Village Semharkachhar, Tahsil Pali, District Korba (Chhattisgarh)................(Claimant), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 6. Smt. Sonkunwar W/o Shtruhan Singh Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Semharkachhar, Tahsil Pali, District Korba (Chhattisgarh)................(Claimant), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 7. Shatruhan Singh S/o Late Vikram Singh, Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Semharkachhar, Tahsil Pali, District Korba (Chhattisgarh)................(Claimant), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 8. Brajendra Mishra S/o Ramakant Mishra, Aged About 22 Years R/o Podhi, Thana Manjholi, District Sidhi (M.P.) (Driver Vehicle No. Cg-04-M.J.-9124), District : Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh 9. M/s A.K. Total Solution, Prop. Yogesh Agrawal R/o 63, Bazarpara Ward, No. 12, Neora, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WITH MAC No. 708 of 2020 1. Smt. Mankunwar W/o Sahettar Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Semharkachhar Tahsil Pali District Korba, Chhattisgarh 2. Sahettar S/o Awadhram Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Semharkachhar Tahsil Pali District Korba, Chhattisgarh 3. Rajesh S/o Sahettar Aged About 16 Years Minor Therefore Represented Through Smt. Mankunwar (Mother). R/o Village Semharkachhar Tahsil Pali District Korba, Chhattisgarh 4. Surendra S/o Sahettar Aged About 11 Years Minor Therefore Represented Through Smt. Mankunwar (Mother). R/o Village Semharkachhar Tahsil Pali District Korba, Chhattisgarh 5 ---Appellants Versus 1. Brijendra Mishra S/o Ramakant Mishra Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Pondi P.S. Manjholi District Sidhi (M.P.) (Driver Of The Vehicle) 2. M/s. A. K. Total Solushan Proprietor Yogesh Agrawal R/o. 63 Bazarpara Ward No. 12 Newara Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle) 3. H.D.F.C. Ergo Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager Office At Napier Town Opposite Income Tax Office Jabalpur District Jabalpur (M.P.) (Insurer) --- Respondents For Claimants : Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate For Insurance Company : Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate For Owner of the Offending Vehicle : Mr. V.N. Shrivas, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 29-10-2025 1) In MAC/6/2021, Insurance Company has challenged the award passed by learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katgohora, District Korba (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 24/2019 dated 3.3.2020 whereby Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 12,22,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum to the claimants on account of death of Jagannath Orkera, whereas claimants have filed MAC/707/2020 for enhancement of compensation. 2) In MAC/7/2021, Insurance Company has challenged the award 6 passed by learned Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. 25/2019 dated 17.1.2019 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,02,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum to the claimants on account of death of Ramnarayan, whereas claimants have preferred MAC/810/2019 for enhancement of compensation. 3) Facts in brief are that on 20.1.2019 at about 2:50 p.m., Ramnarayan and Jagannath were going on motor cycle. When they reached near Beltara Bus Stand, one Brajendra Mishra driving the offending vehicle (truck) bearing registration No. CG- 04-MJ-9124 in opposite direction, dashed the motor cycle. In the accident, both persons sustained grievous injuries and died. 4) On account of death of Jagannath Orkera, his wife, four minor children and parents filed Claim Case No. 24/2019 and pleaded that the deceased was aged about 40 years and was working as mason earning Rs. 18,000/- per month. They claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 45,60,000/- under various heads. 5) On account of death of Ramnarayan, his parents and siblings filed Claim Case No. 25/2019 and pleaded that the deceased was aged about 21 years and was working as painter earning Rs. 18,000/- per month. They claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 37,60,000/- under various heads. Claims Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and awards impugned were passed on 3.3.2020. 6) Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, counsel appearing for the claimants submits 7 that the deceased Jagannath Orkera was aged about 40 years and he was a mason but Claims Tribunal has considered the income of deceased to be Rs. 8,000/- which is at lower side. He further submits that Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards future prospects and also failed to grant compensation for loss of consortium to claimants No. 2 to 7, who are the minor children and parents of the deceased. 7) With regard to the deceased Ramnarayan, he contends that the deceased was aged about 21 years and he was a painter but the Claims Tribunal has considered the age of the parents of the deceased while applying the multiplier. He further contends that Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards future prospects and also failed to award compensation towards loss of consortium in favor of the parents of the deceased. He prays to enhance the compensation accordingly. 8) On the other hand, Mr. Ashish Pandey, counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose. He submits that a specific issue was raised by the Insurance Company before the Claims Tribunal with regard to contributory negligence as there was a head-on collision between the motorcycle and offending truck. He further submits that Claims Tribunal while deciding the issue with regard to contributory negligence, failed to consider the investigation report (Ex. D/1) He prays to modify the awards accordingly. 8 9) Mr. V.N. Shrivas, counsel appearing for the owner of the offending vehicle supports the contention made by Mr. Pandey. 10) Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 11) Firstly, I would like to deal with the appeals preferred by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company has challenged the awards impugned on the ground that there was contributory negligence on the part of driver of motorcycle and the Claims Tribunal framed a specific issue in this regard. Laxminarayan Lohar (NA-W/1) was examined by the Insurance Company and he stated that accident was result of negligence on the part of driver of the motorcycle. Although, this witness has admitted that he was not an eye-witness to the accident. Further, Insurance Company failed to adduce evidence to establish that there was contributory negligence on the part of driver of the motorcycle. 12) It is pertinent to mention that Claims Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding in this regard and found the issue of contributory negligence not proved. 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, therefore, only on allegation simpliciter, it cannot be presumed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both vehicles. In view of above, the contention made by 9 Mr. Pandey with regard to contributory negligence is misconceived. 13) Now, coming to appeals preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. In MAC/707/2020, age of the deceased Jagannath was 40 years and he was working as mason. Claims Tribunal has considered the notional monthly income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wage matrix applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh at the relevant time to the tune of Rs. 8,000/-, which appears to be reasonable. However, Claims Tribunal failed to award any compensation towards future prospects, therefore claimants are entitled to receive additional compensation of 25% towards future prospects according to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi & others1. Furthermore, Claims Tribunal has not awarded separate compensation to the claimants No. 2 to 7 who are the minor children and parents of the deceased towards loss of consortium. As the accident occurred in January, 2019 and six years have elapsed since, claimants No. 2 to 7 are entitled to get compensation towards loss of consortium alongwith additional sum of 20% i.e. total Rs. 2,88,000/-. Keeping in mind the above discussed facts, compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal on account of death of Jagannath requires reconsideration in the light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of 1. (2017) 16 SCC 680 10 Pranay Sethi (supra) and same is reproduced herein below :- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Annual Income Rs. 8,000x12 = Rs. 96,000/- Rs. 8,000x12 = Rs. 96,000/- 2. Future Prospect NIL @ 25% = Rs. 1,20,000/- 3. Multiplier @ 15 = Rs. 14,40,000/- @ 15 = Rs. 18,00,000/- 4. Deduction towards personal expenses @ 1/5 = Rs. 11,52,000/- @ 1/5 = Rs. 14,40,000/- 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/- (wife) Rs. 40,000/- + Rs. 2,88,000/- = Rs. 3,28,000/- (wife + parents and four minor children) TOTAL Rs. 12,22,000/- Rs. 17,98,000/- 14) In MAC/708/2020, age of the deceased Ramnarayan was 21 years and he was a bachelor. Claimants have pleaded that the deceased was working as painter and Claims Tribunal has considered the notional monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 8,000/- which is in consonance with the minimum wage matrix and requires no interference. The Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards future prospects, therefore looking to age of the deceased, claimants would be entitled to receive an 11 additional sum of 40% towards future prospects. Also, Claims Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 14 looking to age of the parents of the deceased which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Bhanu Sahli and Ors. Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors2. wherein it is held that to ascertain the multiplier, age of the deceased is relevant and not age of the dependents. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier would be 18 looking to the age of deceased. Futhermore, Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of consortium to the claimants whereas parents and minor siblings of the deceased filed the claim case. In my opinion, parents of the deceased would be entitled to receive compensation towards loss of consortium alongwith an additional sum of 20% i.e. Rs. 96,000/-. Keeping in mind the above discussed facts, compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal on account of death of Ramnarayan requires reconsideration in the light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) and same is reproduced herein below :- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Annual Income Rs. 8,000x12 = Rs. 96,000/- Rs. 8,000x12 = Rs. 96,000/- 2. Future Prospect NIL @ 40% = Rs. 1,34,400/- 2. 2012 AIR SCW 3901 12 3. Multiplier @ 14 = Rs. 13,44,000/- @18 = Rs. 24,19,200/- 4. Deduction towards personal and living expenses @ 1/2 = Rs. 6,72,000/- @ 1/2 = Rs. 12,09,600/- 5. Medical Bills Rs. 2,00,000/- Rs. 2,00,000/- 6. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 7. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 8. Loss of Consortium NIL Rs. 96,000/- (parents) TOTAL Rs. 9,02,000/- Rs. 15,35,600/- 15) As a result, both the appeals preferred by Insurance Company [MAC/6/2021 and MAC/7/2021] are hereby dismissed. 16) In view of the discussion made herein-above in para 12, the appeal preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation on account of death of Jagannath [MAC/707/2020] is allowed in part. Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.12,22,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.17,98,000/-. Hence, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.5,76,000/-. Rest of the conditions of the award impugned shall remain intact. The Insurance Company is directed to make payment of additional compensation assessed herein- above within period of 60 days, failing which, the said amount shall carry an interest @ 18% p.a. 17) Likewise, in view of the discussion made herein-above in para 13, 13 the appeal preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation on account of death of Ramnarayan [MAC/708/2020] is allowed in part. Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.9,02,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.15,35,600/-. Hence, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.6,33,600/-. Rest of the conditions of the award impugned shall remain intact. The Insurance Company is directed to make payment of additional compensation assessed herein-above within period of 60 days, failing which, the said amount shall carry an interest @ 18% p.a. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a