-1- 2025:CGHC:58572 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 883 of 2019 1 - Anita Kenvat Wd/o Thandaram Kenvat, Aged About 30 Years R/o Vahanopath Ralia, Tehsil - Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sumit Kenvat Aged About 10 Years, Minors Hence They Are Represented By Their Natural Guardian Their Mother Appellant No. 1, R/o Vahanopath Ralia, Tehsil - Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Simran Kumari, Aged About 7 Years, Minors Hence They Are Represented By Their Natural Guardian Their Mother Appellant No. 1, R/o Vahanopath Ralia, Tehsil - Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Suman Kenvat Aged About 2 Years, Minors Hence They Are Represented By Their Natural Guardian Their Mother Appellant No. 1, R/o Vahanopath Ralia, Tehsil - Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5 - Firtin Bai Kenvat W/o Jethuram Aged About 65 Years R/o Vahanopath Ralia, Tehsil - Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Ashok Siingh S/o Buddhu Singh, R/o - Kusmunda, Tehsil - Katghora, District - Korba Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle Driver ), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Khushabhraj Lamba S/o Manohar Lal Lamba, R/o Dhanuharpara, Rani Road Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle Driver ), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Through Its Branch Manager, Sada Complex,t.P. Nagar, Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate For respondent No.3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For other respondents : None appears though served Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board -2- 03.12.2025 1) The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act assailing judgment and award passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) in Claim Case No.162/2017 dated 08.03.2019, whereby, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.6,73,750/- with interest @ 7% per annum on account of death of Thandaram Kenvat. 2) The brief facts are that on 05.11.2017 about 9:30 p.m., Thandaram Kenvat was going to Village Andiyaripara on his motorcycle, the offending trailer bearing registration No.C.G.12/S4996 was stationary in the middle of the road without any indicators, resultantly, the deceased hit against the stationary truck and sustained injuries and died on the spot. The claimants, who are widow and three minor children and mother of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein, they pleaded that at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 30 years and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. They claimed a total sum of Rs.27,30,000/-. 3) The driver, owner as well as the Insurance Company filed reply and denied averments made in the claim petition; learned Tribunal framed issues; the parties led evidence and thereafter award was passed. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that the learned Tribunal committed error of law while holding the deceased negligent and fixing his liability of contributory negligence to the extent of 50%. He would further submit that the offending trailer was parked in the middle of the road without use of indicator or tail light. He would contend that the learned Tribunal decided this issue contrary to the facts and well-settled principle of law. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the -3- matter of Sushma Vs. Nitin Ganapati Rangole and others, passed in Civil Appeal No.10648 of 2024. He would submit that the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased Rs.5,000/- per month. He would further submit that in absence of evidence, learned Tribunal should have treated the deceased an unskilled labourer. He would contend that the minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of November, 2017 was Rs.8,580/- and the learned Tribunal should have taken that figure while computing the income of the deceased. He would further contend that for loss of consortium, learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/- to all claimants and it should be Rs.40,000/- + additional sum of 20% to each claimants. It is also argued by Mr. Mishra that learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for loss of estate. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly. 5) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Mr.Mishra. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has rightly decided the issue of contributory negligence and held that the deceased was negligent while riding his motorcycle. He would further submit that according to crime details form, there was sufficient space on the road. He would contend that the deceased had sufficient time to locate the stationary vehicle and doctrine of last opportunity would attract. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation and thus, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7) With regard to contributory negligence, learned Tribunal has recorded a finding that the offending trailer was parked in the middle of the road and indicators or tail light were not used. -4- 8) The witness namely, Shiv Kumar Rathore (AW2) has stated that the offending trailer was parked in the middle of the road. This witness stated that the driver of the offending trailer informed him that he was hungry at that point of time and after taking dinner, he would park the vehicle at the side of the road. 9) Ex.P/3, crime details form would reveal that the offending trailer was parked in the middle of the road. 10) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sushma(supra), while dealing with the issue of contributory negligence held that as the offending truck was parked in the middle of the road without any parking lights being switched on and without any markers or indicators being placed around the stationary vehicle so as to warn the incoming vehicular traffic. The driver and owner of the vehicle were held responsible for negligence leading to the accident. Relevant paras 40 & 41 are reproduced herein below : “40. On a holistic analysis of the material available on record, it is established beyond the pale of doubt that the offending truck was parked in the middle of the road without any parking lights being switched on and without any markers or indicators being placed around the stationary vehicle so as to warn the incoming vehicular traffic. This omission by the person in control of the said truck was in clear violation of law. The accident took place on a highway where the permissible speed limits are fairly high. In such a situation, it would be imprudent to hold that the driver of a vehicle, travelling through the highway in the dead of the night in pitch dark conditions, would be able to make out a stationary vehicle lying in the middle of the road within a reasonable distance so as to apply the brakes and avoid the collision. The situation would be compounded by the headlights of the vehicles coming from the opposite direction and make the viewing of the stationary vehicle even more difficult. Thus, the conclusion drawn by the Courts below that the driver of the car could have averted the accident by applying the brakes and hence, he was equally negligent and contributed to the accident on the application of principle of last opportunity is ex-facie perverse and cannot be sustained. Hence, it is a fit case warranting exercise of this Court's powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the concurrent finding of facts. 41. We, therefore, hold that the person in control of the offending -5- truck insured by respondent No. 2-Insurer, was fully responsible for the negligence leading to the accident.” 11) In the present case also, the offending trailer was parked in the middle of the road without use of indicators or markers in highway. 12) The eyewitness Shivkumar Rathore (AW2) has supported the case of the claimants. The crime details report further makes it clear that the offending trailer was parked in the middle of the road. 13) With regard to negligence on the part of the deceased, as the stationary vehicle was lying in the middle of the road and it was not possible for the deceased to apply breaks to avoid collusion, the situation would be compounded by the headlights of the vehicles coming from the opposite direction and make the viewing of the stationary vehicle even more difficult. Thus, the conclusion drawn by the learned Tribunal with regard to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased is not sustainable. The contention made by Mr. Gulati with regard to application of principle of last opportunity cannot be accepted. Accordingly the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal with regard to 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased is hereby set aside. 14) The award passed by the learned Tribunal would show that the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased Rs.5,000/- per month. In absence of evidence with regard to income of deceased, learned Tribunal should have assessed the income of the deceased applying minimum wages matrix. The minimum wage admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of November, 2017 was Rs.8,580/- per month and the learned Tribunal should have taken that figure while computing the income of the deceased. Learned Tribunal has not awarded adequate compensation for loss of consortium to the claimants. The compensation for loss of estate has also not been awarded to the claimants. The accident had -6- taken place in the year 2017 and therefore, as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nanu Ram 2018 reported in 2018 SCC Online SC 1546 the amount of compensation for loss of consortium and loss of estate would carry an additional sum of 20%. 15) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the compensation requires recomputation and same is being revisited herein below : Sr.No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs.5,000/- x 12= 60,000/- Rs.8,580 x 12= 1,02,960/- 2. Future Prospect Rs. 90,000/- (@50%) Rs. 1,54,440/- (@50%) 3. Deduction Rs. 67,500/- (@1/4) Rs. 1,15,830/- (@1/4) 5. Multiplier Rs. 11,47,500/- (@17) Rs. 19,69,110/- (@17) 6. For funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- Rs.18,000/- 7. For loss of estate Not awarded Rs.18,000/- 8. Loss of Consortium Rs.75,000/- (awarded for all claimants) Rs. 2,40,000/- (Rs. 48,000 x 5 claimants) 9. Total Rs.13,47,500/- Rs. 22,45,110/- 10. Deduction towards contributory negligence Rs.6,73,750/- (@50%) NIL -7- FINAL TOTAL Rs.6,73,750/- Rs. 22,45,110/- 16) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs. 6,73,750/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 22,45,110/- Hence, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 15,71,360/- The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its realization. The rest of the terms and conditions of award shall remain intact. 17) With the aforesaid observation, the appeal is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha