1 2025:CGHC:42498 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 776 of 2018 1 - Manager, Sbi General Insurance Company Ltd. 148, 3rd Floor, Above Sbi Banking Branch, Thapar Enclave, Masharajbag Road, Ramdaspath Nagpur, Through Branch Office Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle No. Mh-40 Y-4295), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Rejvanti Devi Wd/o Late Indrasan Prasad Mahto Aged About 38 Years R/o Tajpur Basti, Thana Janta Bazar, District Chhapra (Bihar), Bihar. 2 - Satyendra S/o Late Indrasan Prasad Mahto Aged About 18 Years R/o Tajpur Basti, Thana Janta Bazar, District Chhapra (Bihar), Bihar. 3 - Minor Upendra S/o Late Indrasan Prasad Mahto Aged About 16 Years Minor Representing Through Mother Smt. Rejvanti Devi Wd/o Late Indrasan Prasad Mahto, R/o Tajpur Basti, Thana Janta Bazar, District Chhapra (Bihar), Bihar. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 4 - Minor Akash S/o Late Indrasan Prasad Mahto Aged About 14 Years Minor Representing Through Mother Smt. Rejvanti Devi Wd/o Late Indrasan Prasad Mahto, R/o Tajpur Basti, Thana Janta Bazar, District Chhapra (Bihar), Bihar. 5 - Minor Vikash S/o Late Indrasan Prasad Mahto Aged About 8 Years Minor Representing Through Mother Smt. Rejvanti Devi Wd/o Late Indrasan Prasad Mahto, R/o Tajpur Basti, Thana Janta Bazar, District Chhapra (Bihar), Bihar. 6 - Minor Soni D/o Late Indrasan Prasad Mahto Aged About 6 Years Minor Representing Through Mother Smt. Rejvanti Devi Wd/o Late Indrasan Prasad Mahto, R/o Tajpur Basti, Thana Janta Bazar, District Chhapra (Bihar) (Claimants), Bihar. 7 - Jai Singh S/o Bhagat Singh Rajput R/o Tekanaka, Ranari Road, Mahada Colony, H.No.851, Building No. 54, Thana Jari Fatka, District Nagpur (Maharashtra) (Driver Of Vehicle No. Mh-40 Y-4295), District : Nagpur, Maharashtra. 8 - Karnal Singh Multani (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 21/08/2025. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 6 : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent No. 7 : None. 3 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 21/08/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 4/2025, which is an application for deletion of respondent No. 8. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A. No. 4/2025 is allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to carry out necessary amendment during the course of the day. 4. The present is an Insurance Company’s appeal assailing the award dated 30.1.2018 passed by the Court of 2nd Additional of 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 495/2014, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 15,88,750/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of claimants/respondents No. 1 to 6 herein. 5. Brief facts of the case, is that, respondents No. 1 to 6, being the legal representatives of the deceased Mr. Indrasan Prasad Mahto, filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”), seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 37,44,000/- before the learned Tribunal. It was pleaded that respondent No. 1 is the wife and respondents No. 2 to 6 are the children of the deceased. Respondent No. 7 was the driver, and respondent No. 8 was the owner of the commercial 4 vehicle bearing registration No. MH-40-Y-4295 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”), while the appellant was the insurer of the said vehicle. As per the claim, on 19.07.2014, the deceased was driving his vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04- 0-6343 near village Tiraiya Talab, when the offending vehicle, driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 7, hit his vehicle, causing grievous injuries which resulted in his death during treatment. The claimants/respondents No. 1 to 6 pleaded that the deceased was 40 years old, working as a driver, earning Rs. 12,000/- per month, and that they were all dependent upon his income, hence claimed compensation of Rs. 37,44,000/- under various heads. Notices of the claim application were issued to respondents No. 7 and 8 as well as to the appellant; however, respondents No. 7 and 8 remained ex parte and did not file their written statement. The appellant contested the claim and denied all allegations, pleading that respondent No. 7 did not possess a valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle, and without prejudice, further contended that the principle of contributory negligence should be applied in the interest of justice, while also denying the deceased’s income, profession, and dependency. The Learned Tribunal, after framing issues on the pleadings of the parties, appreciated the evidence and materials on record, but decided the issues against the appellant 5 and in favour of the claimants without properly framing the issues raised in the written statement or deciding the framed issues in accordance with law. The Tribunal failed to conduct a proper inquiry under Sections 168 and 169 of the Act read with the C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994, and ignored the basic principles of law required for determining liability, negligence, and quantum of compensation. It also failed to properly inquire into the dependency of the claimants and did not provide adequate opportunity for adducing evidence. Consequently, the findings of the Tribunal are arbitrary and unsustainable in law. An application under Section 170 of the Act was filed and allowed, and the appellant deposited Rs. 25,000/- towards statutory deposit under Section 173 of the Act, as evidenced by the deposit memo annexed as Annexure A-2. Since the claimants failed to prove the profession and income of the deceased, the award passed by the Tribunal is highly excessive, arbitrary, bad in law, and deserves to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the learned Tribunal has committed a serious error in the assessment of the income of the deceased. It is contended that the income has been arbitrarily and incorrectly assessed at a sum of Rs. 9,000/- per month without any cogent basis or documentary evidence to substantiate such a figure. It is further 6 urged that the Tribunal, while determining the income, ought to have taken into consideration the statutory provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, which provides the legally mandated wage structure applicable to the category of employment of the deceased. In the absence of any authentic documentary proof of actual earnings, the Tribunal was duty-bound to rely upon the Minimum Wages Act as the guiding standard for a fair and just determination of income. Therefore, the assessment of income at Rs. 9,000/- is not sustainable in the eyes of law and requires correction by adopting the income in accordance with the minimum wage notified for the relevant period. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 6 has submitted that the deceased was employed as a truck driver and was earning a sum of Rs. 18,000/- per month at the time of his death. However, the Learned Tribunal, without appreciating the true facts and the evidence adduced, has erroneously assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 9,000/- only, which is on the lower side and does not reflect his actual earnings. It is further urged that while computing the compensation, the Tribunal has also committed an error in calculating the component of future prospects, which has been wrongly assessed to the detriment of the claimants. Upon a specific query put by this Hon’ble Court, 7 the learned counsel fairly submits that no cross-appeal has been filed by the respondents against the impugned award, and as such, they are confining their arguments only to the extent of pointing out the errors committed in the income assessment and calculation of future prospects by the Tribunal. 8. None for respondents No. 7 i.e. driver of the offending vehicle. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, and particularly taking into account the fact that the deceased was employed as a truck driver, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal has rightly and reasonably assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 9,000/-. The said assessment is based on a fair appreciation of the evidence and materials on record and, therefore, does not warrant any interference by this Court. 11. In view of the foregoing, the appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat