(MAC No.602/2023) 2025:CGHC:56584 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 602 of 2023 {Arising out of award dated 20-1-2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, District Mungeli in Claim Case No.74/2018} 1. Kunj Bihari, S/o Late Radhelal Chandrakar, Aged about 25 years. 2. Dukhiya Bai, W/o Late Radhelal Chandrakar, Aged about 45 years. Both are R/o Village Mahka, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kawardha, Chhattisgarh (Claimants) ... Appellants versus 1. Balram Bhardwaj, S/o Maansingh Bhardwaj, Aged about 28 years, R/o Village Chatarkhar, Tahsil and District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. (Driver cum registered owner of the offending vehicle Bolero bearing registration No.CG-04/HL-0715) (Driver cum Owner) 2. Megma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited, Rajendra Nagar Park, Link Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of the offending vehicle Bolero bearing registration No.CG- 04/HL-0715). (Insurer) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Harneet Kaur Khanuja, Advocate. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 20/11/2025 SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.11.21 16:11:36 +0530 (MAC No.602/2023) 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act of 1988’) has been preferred by the appellants herein/claimants seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 20-1-2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, District Mungeli in Claim Case No.74/2018, by which the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of ₹ 3,78,200 /- as compensation for the death of Radhelal Chandrakar, who was a Tube-well Mechanic, aged about 50 years at the time of incident. The appellants herein/claimants are son and wife, respectively, of deceased Radhelal Chandrakar. 2. Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants herein/claimants, would submit that just and proper compensation has not been awarded to the claimants and apart from that the finding of the Claims Tribunal regarding contributory negligence and deduction of 50% from compensation towards contributory negligence of the deceased is totally unwarranted, as such, the said finding deserves to be set aside and compensation should be enhanced by allowing the appeal and awarding suitable compensation. 3. Ms. Harneet Kaur Khanuja, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company/respondent No.2 herein, would oppose the appeal and support the impugned award. Page 3 of 5 (MAC No.602/2023) 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. The Insurance Company has only taken a halfhearted plea of contributory negligence in para 12 of its written statement stating that the accident occurred on account of the own negligence on the part of the deceased. Jitendra Chandrakar (AW-2) – eyewitness, has clearly stated that the offending vehicle Bolero was being driven rashly and negligently by Balram Bharadwaj and it dashed the motorcycle. He has been subjected to cross-examination, but there is nothing in his statement which could show that the deceased was also totally negligent. The said fact has been refuted by Jitendra Chandrakar. As such, there is no evidence on behalf of the Insurance Company to establish the plea of contributory negligence. Accordingly, the finding of contributory negligence and 50% deduction towards the same is set aside. 6. Thus, considering the evidence available on record and that the deceased was Tube-well Mechanic, 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. 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 (MAC No.602/2023) 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 ₹ 6,000/- x 12 = ₹ 72,000/- (Yearly Income) ₹ 8,000 x 12 = ₹ 96,000/- (Yearly Income) 2. Future Prospect (+) 10% i.e. ₹ 7,200; total yearly income = ₹ 72,000 + 7,200 = ₹ 79,200/- (+) 10% i.e. ₹ 9,600 total yearly income = ₹ 96,000 + 9,600 = ₹ 1,05,600/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 = ₹ 26,400/- ₹ 79,200 – 26,400 = ₹ 52,800/- (-) 1/3 = ₹ 35,200/- ₹ 1,05,600 – 35,200 = ₹ 70,400/- 4. Multiplier (x) 13 = ₹ 6,86,400/- (x) 13 = ₹ 9,15,200/- 5. Loss of Estate ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 16,500/- 6. Funeral Expenses ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 16,500/- 7. Loss of Consortium ₹ 40,000/- 44,000/- x 2 = ₹ 88,000/- Total ₹ 7,56,400/- ₹ 10,36,200/- Deduction 50% towards Contributory Negligence ₹ 3,78,200/- NIL Total amount awarded ₹ 3,78,200/- ₹ 10,36,200/- 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹ 3,78,200/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹ 10,36,200/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹ 3,78,200/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of ₹ 6,58,000/-. 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 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 (MAC No.602/2023) @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 29-11-2018 till its realisation. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma