(MAC Nos.996/2022 & 967/2022) 2025:CGHC:52489 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 996 of 2022 {Arising out of award dated 13-5-2022 passed by the 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg in Motor Accident Claim Case No.186/2021} The New India Assurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Office Address – Station Road, Near Ujala Bhawan, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Insurance Company of Vehicle Truck No.CG-08/AJ-6422) --- Appellant versus 1. Ishwar Lal Sahu (Died and Deleted) 2. Smt. Shakun Sahu, W/o Ishwar Lal Sahu, Age 52 years. 3. Smt. Raj Laxmi Sahu, W/o Domendra Kumar Sahu, Age 29 years. 4. Kumari Lokeshwari Sahu, D/o Ishwar Lal, Age 27 years. All R/o Village Khalari, Ward No.3, Khalari, Post Kalankpur, District Balod, Chhattisgarh (Claimants) 5. Rupesh Das, S/o Ishwar Das, Age 24 years, R/o Ward No.7, Kasaunda, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh (Driver of Vehicle Truck No.CG-08/AJ-6422) (Vehicle Driver) 6. Gaurav Chopda, S/o Late Lalchand Chopda, R/o C/o Ramesh Jain, Ramadhin Marg, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Owner of Vehicle Truck No.CG-08/AJ-6422) (Vehicle Owner) --- Respondents AND SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.10.30 10:38:34 +0530 (MAC Nos.996/2022 & 967/2022) MAC No. 967 of 2022 1. Ishwar Lal Sahu (Died and Deleted) 2. Smt. Shakun Sahu, W/o Ishwar Lal Sahu, Aged about 52 years, 3. Smt. Raj Laxmi Sahu, W/o Domendra Kumar Sahu, Aged about 29 years, 4. Ku. Lokeshwari Sahu, D/o Ishwar Lal, Aged about 27 years All R/o Village Ward No.3, Khalari, Post Kalangpur, District Balod, Chhattisgarh (Claimants) --- Appellants Versus 1. Rupesh Das, S/o Ishwar Das, Aged about 24 years, R/o Ward No.7, Village Kasaunda, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh —Driver— (Truck No.CG-08/AJ-6422) 2. Gourav Chopra, S/o Lalchand Chopra, R/o C/o Ramesh Jain, Ramadheen Marg, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh —Owner— (Truck No. CG-08/AJ-6422) 3. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Office Station Road, Near Ujala Bhawan, Durg, Tahsil & District Durg, Chhattisgarh —Insurer— (Truck No. CG-08/AJ- 6422) --- Respondents For Claimants : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate. For Insurance Company : Mr. Prasanjit Dutta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 28/10/2025 1. Since both the above appeals have arisen out of one and same award dated 13-5-2022 passed by the 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg in Motor Accident Claim Case No.186/2021 and (MAC Nos.996/2022 & 967/2022) since common question of fact and law is involved in both the appeals, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. MAC No.996/2022 has been preferred on behalf of the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking exoneration from its liability to pay the amount of compensation saddled by the Claims Tribunal, whereas MAC No.967/2022 has been preferred on behalf of the Claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. 3. The Claims Tribunal for the death of Tejasvi Sahu, aged about 31 years at the time of accident, who was working as Medical Representative Sales Officer at Healing Pharma Company and getting ₹ 20,000/- per month, awarded a total compensation of ₹ 21,81,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum fastening liability upon the Insurance Company against which these two appeals have been preferred. 4. In the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company, the plea of contributory negligence has been pressed into service. A careful perusal of the record would show that though the plea of contributory negligence has been taken, but no evidence has been laid on behalf of the Insurance Company to establish such plea. In that view of the matter and in view of the evidence of eyewitness Udit Sahu (AW-2) as also considering the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal in paragraph 22 of the impugned award, I am of the (MAC Nos.996/2022 & 967/2022) opinion that the Claims Tribunal has rightly rejected the plea of contributory negligence and as such, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the said finding, as the plea of contributory negligence has not been proved. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to take monthly income of the deceased as ₹ 20,000/-. 6. Thus, considering the evidence available on record, 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 Sethi1, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. 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:- S. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court/New Calculation 1. Income ₹ 15,000 x 12 = ₹ 1,80,000/- ₹ 20,000 x 12 = ₹ 2,40,000/- 2. Future Prospect (+) 40% i.e. ₹ 72,000; total income = ₹ 1,80,000 + 72,000 = ₹ 2,52,000/- (+) 40% i.e. ₹ 96,000; total income = ₹ 2,40,000 + 96,000 = ₹ 3,36,000/- 3. Deduction (-) 50% = ₹ 1,26,000/- ₹ 2,52,000 – 1,26,000 = ₹ 1,26,000/- (total income) (-) 50% = ₹ 1,68,000/- ₹ 3,36,000 – 1,68,000 = ₹ 1,68,000/- (total income) 4. Multiplier (x) 16 = ₹ 20,16,000/- (x) 16 = ₹ 26,88,000/- 5. Loss of Estate ₹ 16,500/- ₹ 16,500/- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 (MAC Nos.996/2022 & 967/2022) 6. Funeral Expenses ₹ 16,500/- ₹ 16,500/- 7. Loss of Consortium ₹ 44,000 x 3 = ₹ 1,32,000/- ₹ 44,000 x 1 = ₹ 44,000/- Total ₹ 21,81,000/- ₹ 27,65,000/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹ 21,81,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹ 27,65,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹ 21,81,000/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of ₹ 5,84,000/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the 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. 19-2-2021 till its realisation. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed on behalf of the claimants is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Consequently, the appeal filed on behalf of the Insurance Company stands dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma