1 2025:CGHC:53060 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 518 of 2021 1 - Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Divisional Office Bhilai, Shivnath Complex, G. E. Road, Supela, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Dubeyram Mourya S/o Budhsan Ram Mourya Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Makdi Khutpadarpara, Post Mohhai, Tahsil And District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Mangaldai W/o Budhsan Ram Mourya Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Makdi Khutpadarpara, Post Mohhai, Tahsil And District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh 3 - Budhsan Ram Mourya S/o Lachchinram Mourya Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Makdi Khutpadarpara, Post Mohhai, Tahsil And District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh 4 - Loknath Dlai S/o Bariko Dalai Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Sulabh Rajiv Nagar, A. C. C. Jamul Ward No. 14, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgrh ... Respondent(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant/ Insurance Company: Shri Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondent No.4 : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30.10.2025 NIRMALA RAO 2 1. The appellant/ Insurance Company has challenged the award passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kondagaon in Claim Case No.13 of 2019 dated 23.2.2021 whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs.17,43,759/- with interest @ 9% per annum on account of death of Smt. Savitri Mourya. 2. The brief facts are that on 9.4.2018, respondent No.1/ husband of the deceased, had taken his wife to Kondagaon Hospital for treatment on his motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G. 27 H 3351. While they were returning to village Makdi, the driver of the offending vehicle, a truck bearing registration No.C.G. 07 CA 7252, by driving rashly and negligently hit the motorcycle resultantly, the deceased namely Smt. Savitri Mourya sustained grievous injuries and during course of treatment succumbed to death in Balaji Hospital, Raipur on 1.5.2018. The claimants are the husband and in-laws of the deceased. They pleaded that at the time of accident, the deceased was 26 years old and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. They claimed compensation of Rs.16,50,000/-. The Insurance Company filed its reply and took the plea that on the date of accident, the driver of the motorcycle did not have a valid and effective driving license. The Tribunal framed issues; the parties led evidence and thereafter, an award was passed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently argue that the claimants had categorically pleaded monthly income of the deceased Rs.6,000/- but the learned Tribunal assessed her notional income at Rs.7,120/- per month, which is illegal. He would further submit that claimant No.1 is husband, whereas claimants No.2 & 3 are the in-laws of the deceased and they cannot be treated as dependents on her 3 income. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has framed a specific issue with regard to contributory negligence and found it proved, but the learned Tribunal failed to assess the extent of contributory negligence and thus, committed illegality. He would pray to set aside the award. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellant. He would submit that although the claimants pleaded earning of deceased Rs.6,000/- per month but the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation after taking into consideration the minimum wages matrix applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh at the relevant time. He would further submit that the in-laws of the deceased were dependent on her income and the contention made by counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. He would submit that the deceased as well as her husband both were working as labourers because it was not possible to earn livelihood from the income of husband of the deceased only. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has wrongly answered the issue No.2 with regard to contributory negligence as proved, whereas in para 10 it has clearly been observed that the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. He would contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection. 6. The contention made by counsel for the appellant with regard to monthly income pleaded by the claimants, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramla and Others vs. National Insurance Company 4 Limited and Others, reported in (2019) 2 SCC 192, in paragraph 5, it was held that the Tribunal and Courts may grant just and proper compensation, which is reproduced herein-below: “5. Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs.25,00,000/ in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the same as mentioned supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award “just compensation”. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. A “just compensation” is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. It cannot be said to have become time-barred. Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The Courts are duty bound to award just compensation. (See the judgments of this Court in the cases of (a) Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274 (b) Magma General Insurance v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 (c) Ibrahim v. Raju, (2011) 10 SCC 634.” 7. In the present case, the learned Tribunal has applied the minimum wage matrix applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal with regard to income of the deceased appears to be fair and reasonable and therefore, the contention made by counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. 8. The contention with regard to contributory negligence though, the learned Tribunal has found it proved, para 10 of the award shows that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and answer of issue No. 2 appears to be result of 5 mistake. Therefore, the contention made by counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. 9. The learned Tribunal has rightly held that claimants No.2 & 3, the in- laws of the deceased, were dependent on her income. As the deceased as well as her husband were working together as a team to divide household chores and responsibilities, therefore, I am not impressed with the argument advanced by counsel for the appellant with regard to dependency. 10. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I am not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi