1 2025:CGHC:52682 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 31 of 2019  Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through-Branch Office, Sarda Building, Station Raod, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1. Smt. Kusum Devi W/o Late Sunil Kumar Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Chandora, P.S.- Sigodi, District- Patna (Bihar ), District : Patna, Bihar 2. Ku. Sneha @ Aradhana D/o Late Sunil Kumar Aged About 4 Years R/o Village Chandora, P.S.- Sigodi, District- Patna (Bihar ), District : Patna, Bihar 3. Satyendra @ Prahlad S/o Late Sunil Kumar Aged About 2 Years R/o Village Chandora, P.S.- Sigodi, District- Patna (Bihar ), District : Patna, Bihar 4. Ravindra Ram S/o Late Tetar Ram Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Chandora, P.S.- Sigodi, District- Patna (Bihar ), District : Patna, Bihar 5. Smt. Rajkumar Devi W/o Ravindra Ram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Chandora, P.S.- Sigodi, District- Patna (Bihar ), District : Patna, Bihar 6. Shabir Ahmad @ Monu S/o Jahangir Ahmad Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Rudrapur, P.S.- Sourab, District- Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, District : Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh 7. Mohammad Noor S/o Gulam Mustafa Aged About 41 Years R/o Akbarpur, Ganga Ganj, Nawab Ganj, Post- Balraj Nagar, District- Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, District : Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh 8. Smt. Premlata Singh W/o Basant Kumar Singh R/o Mig-74, Housing Board Colony, Kaurinbhata, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 9. The National Insurance Company Ltd. Through- Branch Manager, Kamthai Line, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. H.P. Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 5 : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No. 8 : Mr. Satyendra Srivas, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.K. Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No. 9 : Ms. Pooja Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 29-10-2025 1) By way of this appeal, the appellant – Insurance Company has challenged the liability as well as quantum of the award passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Rajnandgaon in Claim Case No. 22/2016 dated 24.8.2018 whereby Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 23,38,000/- on account of death of Sunil Kumar. 2) Facts of the case in a nutshell are that on 6.7.2015, driver of the offending truck bearing registration No. UP-70-ET-7373, by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the truck bearing registration No. CG-04-DK-6777. In the accident, driver of the truck, namely, Sunil Kumar sustained grievous injuries and died on the way towards hospital. The claimants, who are the widow, minor children and parents of the deceased filed claim case. Insurance Company filed reply and raised the plea of contributory negligence and also 3 pleaded that the offending truck was being driven in breach of insurance policy. Claims Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and award impugned was passed. 3) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that counter FIR was lodged by the Cleaner of the offending truck, namely, Mehboob Hasan on 7.7.2015 wherein it was stated that the deceased himself was negligent in driving the vehicle towards the offending truck. He further submits that Claims Tribunal has failed to consider the counter FIR No. 42/2015 while deciding the issue of contributory negligence and also ignored the fact that accident occurred due to head-on collision. He contends that Claims Tribunal has considered the notional monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 10,000/- per month in absence of any documentary evidence which is on higher side and requires reconsideration. He has placed reliance on the judgments rendered in the matters of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Versus Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Others1 and National Insurance Company Limited Versus Chamundeshwari and Others2. He prays to set aside the award impugned. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. They submit that specific issue with regard to contributory negligence was framed by the Claims Tribunal but the Insurance Company could not prove the same. 1. (2018) 18 SCC 130 2. (2021) 18 SCC 596 4 They further submit that Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6) Admittedly, there was a head-on collision between truck bearing registration No. CG-04-DK-6777 and the offending truck bearing registration No. UP-70-ET-7373. In the accident, driver of truck, namely Sunil Kumar died. In the claim case, claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month but the claimants could not adduce documentary evidence in support of their pleading, therefore Claims Tribunal assessed the notional monthly income of the deceased to Rs. 10,000 per month. 7) In the matter of Nanu Ram (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where there is no evidence to establish the income of the deceased, minimum wage matrix should be applied. In the present case, the claimants categorically pleaded in the claim application that the deceased was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month and Insurance Company failed to rebut such plea, therefore Claims Tribunal rightly considered the notional monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 10,000/- per month. Therefore, contention made by Mr. Agrawal in this regard cannot be accepted. 8) In the matter of Chamundeshwari (supra), the offending vehicle was going in front of car of deceased, had taken a sudden right turn without giving any signal or indicator, the Hon’ble Supreme 5 Court opined that such cannot be a case of contributory negligence. 9) In the instant appeal, Insurance Company has placed a copy of counter FIR dated 7.7.2015 on record. This document was neither produced nor exhibited before the Claims Tribunal ; even application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC has not been moved to take additional document on record. Therefore, this document cannot be taken into consideration at this stage. 10) It is pertinent to mention that Claims Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding to the effect that neither Insurance Company nor driver and owner of the offending truck could adduce evidence to establish the factum of contributory negligence. 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. 11) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.10.30 10:48:22 +0530