(MAC No.1455/2022) 2025:CGHC:57258 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1455 of 2022 {Arising out of award dated 1-10-2022 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No.87/2020} Branch Manager Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, 10003, E-8 EPIP, RIICO, Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan), Through Assistant Manager having office at Plot No.1, 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, Besides Sky Auto Maruti Dealer, Mahoba Bazar, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer) ... Appellant versus 1. Basant Solanki, S/o Late Shivlal Solanki, Aged about 40 years, 2. Yashwant Solanki (Died and deleted) 3. Dayaben Solanki, W/o Yashwant Solanki, Aged about 68 years Respondents No.1 & 3 both R/o Ward No.32, House No.356, Near Kantilal Jewellers, Sadar Bazar, Durg, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.) (Claimants) 4. Satwant Chandne, S/o Dukalu Ram Chandne, Aged about 30 years, R/o Village Thakurtola, P.S. Somni, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Driver) 5. Pitambar Shukla, S/o Jawaharlal Shukla, Aged about 40 years, R/o Nadi Road, Nayapara, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) (Owner) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 3 : Mr. Praveen K. Dhurandhar, Advocate. SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.11.27 10:58:26 +0530 (MAC No.1455/2022) Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 25/11/2025 1. The appellant Insurance Company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 1-10-2022 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No.87/2020, by which the learned Claims Tribunal granting the application under Section 166 of the Act has awarded ₹ 9,16,800/- to the claimants/respondents No.1 to 3 herein for death of deceased Jitendra Solanki, who was a Tailor, aged about 27 years at the time of incident, fastening liability upon the Insurance Company. The Claims Tribunal also held the deceased contributory negligent. 2. Cross-objection has been filed on behalf of the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation amount. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 4. Though the appellant Insurance Company has taken the plea of contributory negligence and evidence of Law Officer Puneet Rathore (NAW-1) has been led, but he was not eyewitness to the incident, therefore, the Claims Tribunal ought not to have relied upon his (MAC No.1455/2022) evidence and held that the deceased was contributory negligent for the accident. 5. The plea of contributory negligence alone is not sufficient and it must be supported by evidence. In the matter of Prabhavati and others v. Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan, Transport Corporation1, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have relied upon the earlier decision in the matter of Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan2 and held that in the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence on record, it cannot be assumed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. Further, following the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh3, their Lordships have held that on an allegation simpliciter, it cannot be presumed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both vehicles. As such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. However, the cross-objection is partly allowed, as monthly income of the deceased ought to have been taken as ₹ 8,320/- (as per minimum wages prescribed at relevant time). 7. Thus, considering the evidence available on record and that the deceased was working as Tailor, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 455 2 (2013) 9 SCC 166 3 (2015) 1 SCC 539 (MAC No.1455/2022) matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi4, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors5 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 6 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:- S. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court/New Calculation 1. Income ₹ 6,000/- ₹ 8,320/- 2. Future Prospect (+) 40% i.e. ₹ 2,400; total monthly income = ₹ 6,000 + 2,400 = ₹ 8,400/- (+) 40% i.e. ₹ 3,328; total monthly income = ₹ 8,320 + 3,328 = ₹ 11,648/- 3. Deduction (-) ½ = ₹ 4,200/- ₹ 8,400 – 4,200 = ₹ 4,200/- (total monthly income) Yearly Income = ₹ 4,200 x 12 = ₹ 50,400/- (-) ½ = ₹ 5,824/- ₹ 11,648 – 5,824 = ₹ 5,824/- (total monthly income) Yearly Income = ₹ 5,824/- x 12 = 69,888/- 4. Multiplier (x) 17 = ₹ 8,56,800/- (x) 17 = ₹ 11,88,096/- 5. Loss of Estate ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 15,000/- 6. Funeral Expenses ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 15,000/- 7. Love and affection to brother ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 15,000/- 8. Love and affection to uncle ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 15,000/- Total ₹ 9,16,800/- ₹ 12,48,096/- 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹ 9,16,800/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹ 12,48,096/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹ 9,16,800/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of ₹ 3,31,296/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the 4 (2017) 16 SCC 680 5 (2009) 6 SCC 121 6 (2018) 18 SCC 130 (MAC No.1455/2022) amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 24-2-2020 till its realisation. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed, the cross-objection is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma