1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment Reserved on – 22/04/2026 Judgment Delivered on - 22/07/2026 Judgment (Full) Uploaded on - 22/07/2026 MAC No. 308 of 2021 1 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri, Raipur Chhattisgarh Through Its Authorized Officer ... Appellant versus 1 - Rajnath Ram Kerketta S/o Shikara Ram Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Khamharpara Boda, Tahsil Batauli, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Mangni Kerketta W/o Rajnath Ram Kerketta Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Khamharpara Boda, Tahsil Batauli, District Surguja Chhattisgarh..............Claimants 3 - Girdhar Ram S/o Mahesh Ram R/o Village Dhodibahar, Post Bandarchuwa, Tehsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh..............Owner 4 - Basant Kumar Singh S/o Girdhar Ram Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Dhodibahar, Post Bandarchuwa, Tehsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh ..........Driver ... Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput C A V Judgment The appellant/Insurance company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) being aggrieved by the award dated 27.01.2021 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.59/2018 by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur, CG. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs.84,25,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.83,31,404/- to the respondent No.1 & 2 on account of death of deceased Dhaneshwar Ram in an accident that took place on 04.08.2016 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Bolero bearing registration No.CG 15 B 8358 driven by the respondent No.4/driver, owned by the respondent No.3/owner and insured with appellant/insurance company. 2. As per the pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was aged about 27 years and was serving in the Central Reserve Police Force at Korba Battalion, Bastar, earning a monthly salary of Rs.40,301/-. 3. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4/ driver and owner have denied the averments made in the claim application and stated in their written statement that the death of Dhaneshwar Ram was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 4 rather, the accident occurred due to the negligence of Dhaneshwar Ram himself. It has further been contended that the applicants have claimed an exorbitant amount of compensation. It is also stated that the vehicle of respondent No.3 was duly insured with appellant/Insurance Company on the date of accident and, therefore, non-applicant No.3 is liable to indemnify and pay the compensation amount, if any. Hence, dismissal of the claim application was prayed for. appellant/Insurance Company has denied the averments made in the claim application and stated in its written statement that respondent No.4 was driving the Bolero vehicle bearing registration No.CG-15B-8358 without holding a valid and effective driving license and, therefore, due to breach of the terms and conditions of 3 the insurance policy, it is not liable to pay any compensation. It has further been contended that the deceased was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner at an excessive speed and was carrying more passengers than the prescribed capacity of the vehicle. According to appellant the deceased himself caused the accident by colliding with the front portion of the offending vehicle. It has also been pleaded that the deceased Dhaneshwar Ram contributed to the accident and therefore, it is a pure case of contributory negligence and the insurance company alone cannot be saddled with the liability of satisfying the award. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and documents placed on record, the following issues were framed for adjudication. Upon appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties and after due consideration thereof, the findings thereon are being recorded as under: Whether on 04.08.2016 at about 6:45 PM, near Village Tatkela, respondent No. 2, while driving the Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. CG-15-B-8358 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against Dhaneshwar Ram Kerketta, thereby causing his death? Proved Whether the applicants are the legal heirs and dependents of deceased Dhaneshwar Ram Kerketta? Proved Whether the applicants are entitled to compensation on account of the accidental death of deceased Dhaneshwar Ram Kerketta and, if so, to what extent? The claimants were held entitled to compensation of Rs. 83,31,404/-. Whether respondent No. 3 / Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation on the ground that respondent No. 2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? Not Proved Whether there is non-joinder of necessary parties in the present claim petition? Not Proved Whether the respondents are jointly and severally liable to Proved 4 pay the compensation amount? Whether the applicants are entitled to support, interest and litigation expenses? The claim was allowed in terms of Clause 23 of the award. Whether the negligence of the driver of Motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-15-CP-3846 contributed to the accident? Not Proved 5. Learned Tribunal after hearing the parties and perusing the record passed the award impugned holding the appellant/insurance company and the respondent No.3 and 4 liable to pay compensation quantified above, jointly and severally. Hence, this appeal. 6. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant/insurance company that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal regarding negligence is contrary to the material available on record and is liable to be set aside. The principal contention raised by Insurance Company is that at the time of the accident, apart from the deceased Dhaneshwar Ram two other persons were also traveling on the motorcycle, whereas the seating capacity of the motorcycle was only for two persons. On the basis of Exhibit A-3, the spot map, it has been contended that the deceased was proceeding from Kansabel towards Bagicha, while the Bolero vehicle was coming from Bagicha towards Kansabel, and the point of impact was situated on the side of the road meant for the Bolero vehicle. It has further been argued by appellant/insurance company that the deceased, while carrying two pillion riders, drove the motorcycle towards the Bolero vehicle and dashed against it, thereby contributing to the occurrence of the accident. Likewise, the amount on personal head has also been erroneously calculated at 1/3rd of the total income which infact should have been half considering the fact that the deceased was bachelor at the time of his accident. He further submits that the allowances which are for the personal utilization of deceased cannot be added in his income to assess the amount of compensation. Thus it is prayed that suitable deduction may be made in the amount of compensation awarded. 5 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the documents on record. 8. First point for determination before this Court is whether the submission of the counsel for the appellant that the deceased was negligent in riding the motorcycle can be held responsible for contributory negligence in causing the accident. As per the pleading of the claim application, the driver of the offending vehicle was driving it rashly and negligently which led to the accident. Driver and owner in their written statement have refuted the allegation of negligence. Appellant/insurance company in its written statement has pleaded that deceased was riding the vehicle along with two pillion riders and thus the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. Though learned Tribunal has not framed any issue with regard to the contributory negligence of the deceased, this submission of the appellant needs consideration and this can be decided along with issue No.1. 9. Claimants have examined four witnesses. Witness No.1 exhibited criminal papers including FIR, map, PM report, final report etc. He was not the eyewitness. Though Premsai Kerketta (AW-2) has examined himself to be the eyewitness to the accident has stated that it is the driver of the offending vehicle who dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, but in cross examination he has stated that he had not seen the accident. Baleshwar Ram Tirki (AW-4) who was accompanying the deceased on the motorcycle has stated that driver of the offending vehicle was rash and negligent in driving, and that the motorcycle was driven slowly. He has stated that in the accident he suffered fracture on both legs, and the deceased died on the spot. In the cross examination made by the counsel for insurance company, he has denied the suggestion that the deceased was not holding the license to drive the vehicle. He has also denied that the deceased was in drunken condition and thus the accident occurred. The appellant/insurance company has examined its law officer Amin Khan (NAW-1) who has deposed that two other persons were sitting on 6 the motorcycle along with the deceased and the deceased was not wearing helmet, and thus the insurance company is not liable. In cross examination, he has stated that there is no document to suggest that deceased was not wearing helmet. 10. From the evidence on record it is evident that criminal case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. The claimants’ witnesses have categorically stated that driver of the offending vehicle was negligent in driving the offending vehicle causing accident. Therefore, from the evidence it is apparent that the deceased was not in drunken condition while riding the vehicle leading to occurrence of accident. The driver of the offending vehicle could be the star witness to throw some light with regard to the negligence but he could not be examined. This Court is thus unable to accept the submission that simply because three persons were sitting on the motorcycle could be taken to be the case of contributory negligence. Of course, riding three persons in a motorcycle is a violation of the MV Act, however, this sole reason cannot be meant to apply contributory negligence. There must either be a causal connection between the violation and the impact of the accident upon the victim. It is in such cases, where, but for the violation of the law, either the accident could have been averted or the impact could have been minimised, that the principle of contributory negligence could be invoked as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mohammed Siddique and another v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others, AIR 2020 SC Thus the contention of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased is liable to be rejected.. 11. The next submission of the counsel for the appellant is that TPT and R/M allowance mentioned in the salary certificate cannot be added for computation of income. In order to prove the salary certificate one Anup Kumar (AW-3) was examined who has categorically stated that the deceased was working as constable in Kobra Batallian of CRPF. His Last Pay Certificate was exhibited as A-12.No question was put by the learned counsel for the insurance company with regard to TPT and R/M allowances. Thus this contention of the counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. 7 12. The next question to be decided in this case is the quantum of compensation keeping in mind the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased. This Court finds force in the argument of counsel for the appellant/insurance company that the amount deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, according to the settled legal position in the case of Sarla Verma and ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and ors., (2009) 6 SCC 121, and considering the fact that the deceased was a bachelor though having two persons dependent on him should be taken as 50% of the total income whereas the learned Tribunal has recorded an erroneous finding assessing the amount under this head to be 1/3rd thereof. Thus, the amount of personal dependence is taken to be 50% of the total income. 13. Now, the other question agitated on behalf of the appellant/ insurance company is that while computing the compensation, learned Tribunal has erroneously considered the gross income of the deceased whereas it should be the net one. This Court is hesitant in accepting this contention of the counsel for the appellant for the reason that ultimately the amount deducted towards GPF and GIS remains the employee's money and is payable back to the employee, or his legal heirs on his death. It is also held in the said judgment that the permissible income tax can be applied if the income falls within it taxable range. This proposition is duly strengthened by the Supreme Court in the matter of Shyamwati Sharma & Ors vs. Karam Singh & Ors reported in (2010) 12 SCC 378. Relevant portion thereof is taken as under- “…We however make it clear that while ascertaining the income of the deceased, any deductions shown in the salary certificate as deductions towards GPF, life insurance premium, repayments of loans etc., should not be excluded from the income. The deduction towards income tax/surcharge alone should be considered to arrive at the net income of the deceased.” 14. This Court, in view of above, is of the opinion that the amount assessed towards personal expenses assessed as 1/3rd of the total income is in abhorrence of the settled legal position referred to above and therefore, this Court is not in 8 agreement with the calculation so made in the impugned award, and replaces the same as 50% of the total income. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal towards the personal expenditure of the deceased as 1/3rd is hereby set aside. The personal expenses of the deceased is now assessed to be 50% of the total income. Order accordingly. 15. So far as the calculation based on the gross income is concerned, being cautious of the legal position referred to above and to grant just and reasonable compensation, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the same. Accordingly, the finding to that effect is hereby affirmed. 16. Resultantly, the compensation for which the claimants are now entitled is worked out as under - Sr. No. Head Calculation 1 Monthly income of the deceased 40,301/- Annual income Rs.4,83,612/- 2 Income Tax (-18,361) Net Annual Income = Rs.4,65,251/- 3 Future Prospects 50% amounting to Rs.2,32,625/- 4,65,251+232625 = 6,97,876/- 4 Loss of dependency 50% 6,97,876/2 (697876-348938) = 3,48,938/- 5 Multiplier of 17 applied 3,48,938 x 17 = 59,31,946/- 6 Loss of estate +15,000/- 7 Funeral expenses +15,000/- 8 Towards consortium + 80,000/- (40,000x2) Total compensation Rs.60,41,946/- 17. Thus, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.60,41,946/-. Instead of Rs.8,33,404/-. Rest of the observations made by the Tribunal in the award impugned regarding mode, apportionment and investment of the amount of compensation is left undisturbed. The compensation amount paid so far by the appellant/insurance company shall be adjusted in the final payment. 9 18. The award impugned is modified as above and consequently, the appeal is allowed in part. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Deepti/Pawan DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2026.07.22 20:18:39 +0530