1 2025:CGHC:55152 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 256 of 2022 The New India Assurance Company Limited, Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.III (460700), IInd Floor, R D A Building, Bajrang Market, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Rewati Bai, Wd/o. Late Jharan Singh Verma, Aged About 30 Years, R/o. Village Kandai, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 2 – Sohan, S/o. Late Jharan Singh Verma, Aged About 10 Years, Minor Through His Mother Rewati Bai, Aged 30 Years, (Respondent No. 1), R/o. Village Kandai, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 3 - Saurya Verma, S/o. Late Jharan Singh Verma, Aged About 1 Years, Minor Through His Mother Rewati Bai, Aged 30 Years, (Respondent No. 1), R/o. Village Kandai, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.11.14 14:14:12 +0530 2 4 - Laxmi Bai, W/o. Ajuva Verma, Aged About 56 Years, R/o. Village Kandai, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Ajuva Verma, S/o. Ghansingh Verma, Aged About 60 Years, R/o. Village Kandai, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 6 - Jaynarayan Koshle, S/o. Premdas Kosle, Aged About 35 Years, R/o. Village Jogipur, P.S. Bemetara, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 7 - Vikash Sethia, S/o. Kesharichand Sethia, R/o. Thakur Baba Ward Gudhiyari, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner). ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 5 : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 12.11.2025 1. The insurance company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the impugned award dated 29.10.2021 passed in Claim Case No.140/2019 for reducing the amount of compensation; whereas, cross appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation and 3 also challenging the deduction of an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards contributory negligence; therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ insurance company, would submit that deceased Jharan Singh Verma was contributory negligent for the accident in question, therefore, 50% of the awarded amount ought to have been deducted towards contributory negligence of the deceased himself while driving the vehicle and the appeal be allowed in part. 3. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, would oppose the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant/ insurance company and he would submit that the claimants have filed cross-appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records meticulously. Appeal of the Insurance Company 5. Though half hearted plea of contributory negligence has been taken by the insurance company in the written statement, but 4 no evidence has been adduced on this behalf. However, eye- witness Jagmohan has been examined on behalf of claimants and he had clearly stated that the offending vehicle was standing on the road and the accident occurred at 7:00 P.M. and indicator light was not switched on, therefore, the deceased collided with the standing truck. There is nothing in the cross-examination to show that the standing offending vehicle was standing with parking light on. In that view of the matter, accident occurred on account of total negligence on the part of the driver of the offending truck, which was insured by the appellant herein. Therefore, the finding of contributory negligence is hereby set aside. So far as, the plea of the penal interest is concerned, the condition of penal interest is set aside. 6. In view of the above, the appeal preferred by the appellant/ insurance company is partly allowed. The claimants are entitled to get full amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 10,25,000/- along-with interest but no penal interest, as the penal interest imposed upon the appellant/ insurance company has been set aside. Cross-Appeal of the Claimants 7. Learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of deceased Jharan Singh Verma to be Rs. 84,000/- per annum, 5 however, in the opinion of this Court, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of the deceased ought to have been taken as Rs. 7,800/- per month and, as such, the yearly income of deceased comes to Rs.93,600/-. 8. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi 1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 3 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court Income as per minimum wages Rs. 84,000/- Rs. 7,800 x 12 = Rs. 93,600/- Add future prospects @40% Nil Rs. 93,600 + 37,440 = Rs. 1,31,040/- Deduction of 1/4 towards personal expenses Rs. 84,000 – 21,000 = 63,000/- Rs. 1,31,040 – 32,760 = 98,280/- Multiplier of 15 Rs. 63,000 x 15 = Rs. 9,45,000/- Rs. 98,280 x 15 = Rs. 14,74,200/- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 6 Loss of Consortium Rs. 35,000/- Rs. 40,000 x 5 = Rs. 2,00,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- Other loss Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 30,000/- Total Rs. 10,25,000/- Rs. 17,19,200/- 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 10,25,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 17,19,200/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 10,25,000/-, the claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 6,94,200/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 10. Accordingly, the cross appeal filed by the claimants is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok