(MAC No.703/2023) 2025:CGHC:52773 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 703 of 2023 {Arising out of award dated 20-2-2023 passed by the 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No.210/2020} United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Authorised Authority, Deputy Manager, In-Charge, TP Hub, Divisional Office 1st Floor, LIC Building, Magarpara Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Non-Applicant No. 3) ... Appellant versus 1. Smt. Rajani Kashyap, Wd/o Late Sheshnath Kashyap, Aged 30 years, (Applicant No. 1) 2. Kumari Awani Kashyap, D/o Late Sheshnath Kashyap, Aged 4 years, Minor through her mother-Smt. Rajani Kashyap, Wd/o Late Sheshnath Kashyap, Aged 30 years, (Applicant No. 2) Both are R/o Mukam & P.O. Malhar, P.S. & Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Premlal Sahu, S/o Mahadev Sahu, Aged 42 years, R/o Village Piparbhauna (Piparbhawana), O.P. Beladua, P.S. Sarsinwa, District Balauda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh (Driver) (Non-Applicant No. 1) 4. Smt. Meena Sahu, W/o Toshan Sahu, R/o Village Kodwa, P.S. & Tahsil Palari, District Balauda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh (Owner) (Non-Applicant No.2) 5. Smt. Nanbai, Wd/o Late Narayan Prasad Kashyap, Aged 65 years, R/o Mukam Janjgir, Ward No.7, B.D. Mahant Upnagar, New Chandaniapara, Janjgir, P.S. Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. (Non-Applicant No. 4) ... Respondents SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.10.30 17:31:19 +0530 (MAC No.703/2023) For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 29/10/2025 1. The appellant Insurance Company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 20-2- 2023 passed by the 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No.210/2020, by which while granting the claim application the learned Claims Tribunal has fastened liability upon the appellant Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation to the extent of ₹ 61,35,564/- along with interest @ 9% per annum to the claimants/respondents No.1 & 2 herein as also to non-applicant No.4/respondent No.5 herein for death of deceased Sheshnath Kashyap. Deceased Sheshnath Kashyap was husband of claimant No.1/respondent No.1 herein, father of claimant No.2/ respondent No.2 herein and son of non-applicant No.4/respondent No.5 herein. 2. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein/Insurance Company, would make two fold submissions; firstly that while driving the two wheeler, the deceased was also negligent, therefore, he was also contributorily negligent and as such, the compensation be reduced to 50% as awarded by the (MAC No.703/2023) learned Claims Tribunal, and secondly, age of the deceased was 31 years at the time of accident as per the PAN card produced along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’), therefore, the appeal be allowed in part. 3. Mr. Anand Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 herein/non-applicant No.4/mother of deceased Sheshnath Kashyap, would oppose the appeal and support the impugned award. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. So far as the plea of contributory negligence is concerned, the Insurance Company for the reasons best known to it did not take the specific plea of contributory negligence except pleading that drivers of both the vehicles i.e. the two wheeler and the four wheeler, both, were responsible for the accident. As such, in absence of specific plea of contributory negligence, the Claims Tribunal is right in rejecting the plea of contributory negligence. 6. Secondly, based on the postmortem report Ex.P-5, age of the victim/ deceased has been taken to be 30 years and multiplier of 17 has been adopted. However, along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, PAN card of the deceased has been produced which demonstrates that the age of the deceased was more than 31 years at (MAC No.703/2023) the time of accident, therefore, the multiplier of 16 ought to have been adopted. It deserves to be noticed that in the written statement submitted by the Insurance Company, there is no mention about the age of the deceased and no specific plea has been taken that age of the deceased was more than 31 years at the time of accident. Therefore, the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC cannot be accepted in absence of pleading of the age of the deceased in the written statement. Accordingly, the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC is rejected and the plea based on Order 41 Rule 27 also deserves to be rejected and it is hereby rejected. 7. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE Soma