1 2026:CGHC:18135 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2138 of 2019 1 - Kalyani Bai W/o Nandkumar Pal Aged About 42 Years R/o Tulsinagar, Khamardih, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Harish Kumar S/o Late Nandkumar Pal Aged About 24 Years R/o Tulsinagar, Khamardih, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Tribhuwan Kumar S/o Late Nandkumar Pal Aged About 20 Years R/o Tulsinagar, Khamardih, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ku. Uma Pal D/o Nandkumar Pal Aged About 19 Years R/o Tulsinagar, Khamardih, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Manmohan Singh S/o Naveen Singh Sidar R/o Florel City Dunda, P. S. Tikra Para, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ..........(Driver Of Vehicle No. C. G. 04, H. U. 2910), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Rajkumari W/o Heer Singh Markam Nageshwara Rao R/o Florel City Dunda, P. S. Tikra Para, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ..........(Owner Of Vehicle No. C. G. 04, H. U. 2910), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - I. C. I. C. I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Through In Charge Officer, Chawala Complex, Devendra Nagar Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Saurabh Gupta on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.04.22 19:26:43 +0530 2 (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 21/04/2026 1. The appellants/claimants have preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act, 1988’) calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the award dated 18.07.2018 passed by the 4th Additional Claims Tribunal to the Court of 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.628/2016 by which liability to pay compensation of Rs.6,20,000/- has been fastened on the respondents. In the present Appeal, the appellants/claimants have prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount as also to set aside the finding of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. 2. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that neither any pleading has been made nor any evidence has been led by the Insurance Company so far as contributory negligence is concerned and the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal is perverse and the same is liable to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Saurabh Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 would support the impugned award. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 3 5. Admittedly, in the case at hand, neither any pleading has been made nor any evidence has been led by the Insurance Company regarding contributory negligence. A careful perusal of the impugned award would show that the said finding is based on Ex.-D/2 (Final Report). However, that document has not been proved either by examining any witness or otherwise. 6. In this regard, it is well settled that plea of contributory negligence alone is not sufficient and it must be supported by evidence. In the matter of Prabhavati and Others Vs. Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan, Transport Corporation1, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have relied upon the decision of Jiju Kuruvila vs. Kunjujamma Mohan2 and held that in the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence on record, it cannot be assumed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. 7. Further following the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Kiran vs. Sajjan Singh3, their Lordships have held that on an allegation simpliciter, it cannot be presumed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both vehicles. 8. In the case at hand, neither any pleading has been raised nor any evidence has been led with regard to contributory negligence. Therefore, in the light of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Prabhavati and Kumari Kiran (Supra), this Court is of the opinion 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 455 2 (2013) 9 SCC 166 3 (2015) 1 SCC 539 4 that the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal regarding contributory negligence deserves to be and is hereby set aside. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, this Court is of the opinion that the Claims Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month, whereas as per the minimum wages at the relevant point of time, monthly income of the deceased should have been assessed at Rs.10,000/-. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that present is a death case, it would be appropriate to enhance award amount by taking monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-. As such, the claimants will be entitled for the following compensation as computed by this Court:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Loss of Income Rs.8,000/- x 12 = Rs.96,000/- Rs.10,000/- x 12 = Rs.1,20,000/- 2. Future prospects (+) 25% of Rs.96,000/- = Rs.24,000/- (+) 25% i.e. Rs.30,000/- 3. Yearly income including future prospect Rs.1,20,000/- Rs.1,20,000/- + Rs.30,000/- = Rs. 1,50,000/- 4. Deduction 1/4th i.e. Rs.30,000/- ¼ i.e. Rs.37,500/- 5. Yearly income after deduction Rs.1,20,000/- - Rs.30,000/- = Rs.90,000/- Rs.1,50,000/- - Rs.37,500/- = Rs.1,12,500/- 6. Multiplier 13, Rs.90,000/- x 13 = Rs.11,70,000/- Rs.1,12,500/- x 13 = Rs.14,62,500/- 7. Funeral expenses + Loss of estate Rs.30,000/- Rs.30,000/- 5 8. Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000 x 4 = Rs.1,60,000/- Total Rs.12,40,000/- Rs.16,52,500/- 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹6,20,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹16,52,500/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹6,20,000/-, the claimants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of ₹10,32,500/-. The respondents shall pay the enhanced amount of compensation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% 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. 11. With the aforesaid modifications, the Appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Barve