1 CGHC010172112024 2026:CGHC:31611 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1023 of 2024 1 - Smt. Punna Bai Sahu Wd/o Late Ratan Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Nandal, Thana Nawagarh, Distt. Bemetara (C.G.) 2 - Hemant Sahu S/o Late Ratan Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Nandal, Thana Nawagarh, Distt. Bemetara (C.G.) 3 - Rajesh Kumar Sahu S/o Late Ratan Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Nandal, Thana Nawagarh, Distt. Bemetara (C.G.) ...Appellants versus 1 - Omprakash Joshi S/o Anjori Joshi Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Aandu, Thana Chandnu, Distt. Bemetara (C.G.) 2 - Kedar Ram Sahu S/o Baburam Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Karanjiya Nawagaon, Thana Chandnu, Distt. Bemetara (C.G.) 3 - Branch Manager I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office 4th Floor, Vadijya Bhavan, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Viprasen Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.07.27 11:30:40 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (23.07.2026) 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 01.04.2024, passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.28/2023, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.1,89,637/- as compensation for the death of Ratan Sahu, who died in a road accident that took place on 17.12.2022. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of both the motorcycle and the tractor-trolley by attributing 25% negligence to the deceased, who was riding the motorcycle, and 75% negligence to the driver of the tractor- trolley. It is submitted that the said finding is contrary to the evidence available on record and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the Tribunal has committed a manifest error in assessing the annual income of the deceased at Rs.34,182/-, which is substantially lower than the minimum wages payable even to an unskilled labourer prevailing on the date of the accident. It is further contended that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is inadequate and requires enhancement in terms of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by 3 the Tribunal be suitably enhanced. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 3 opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and contends that, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the award passed by the Tribunal is just, proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, considered their rival submissions and perused the entire record with due care. 6. Insofar as the issue of contributory negligence is concerned, the record reveals that a charge-sheet was filed against respondent No.1, Omprakash Joshi, the driver of the offending tractor-trolley. The accident is stated to have occurred at about 5:45 p.m. It is also not in dispute that the motorcycle being ridden by the deceased was hit from behind by the tractor-trolley. The claimants adduced both oral and documentary evidence in support of their case and placed on record the certified copy of the charge-sheet. On the other hand, neither the owner nor the driver of the offending vehicle, nor the insurance company, led any evidence in rebuttal. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no material available on record to justify the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased, Ratan Sahu, contributed to the occurrence of the accident to the extent of 25%. In the absence of any cogent evidence establishing contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, the finding recorded by the Tribunal attributing 25% contributory negligence to him cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. 4 8. With regard to the quantum of compensation, it was the case of the claimants that the deceased was earning approximately Rs.7-8 lakhs per annum from cultivation of 18 acres of agricultural land standing in his name. The Tribunal, however, observed that the deceased was about 65 years of age and that his two sons were also engaged in the agricultural operations. It, therefore, held that the entire agricultural income could not be attributed exclusively to the deceased and assessed his annual income at Rs.34,182/-. The accident occurred on 17.12.2022. On the said date, the monthly minimum wages payable even to an unskilled labourer were Rs.9,960/-. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is reassessed at Rs.9,960/-, resulting in an annual income of Rs.1,19,520/-. 9. Taking into consideration the date of accident, the age of the deceased and the number of dependants, this Court finds that the assessment towards future prospects, the deduction towards personal expenses, and the multiplier applied by the Tribunal are in consonance with the settled principles of law and do not call for any interference. However, the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is found to be inadequate and deserves to be enhanced suitably. 10. Consequently, in the light of the aforesaid discussion and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors3, the compensation payable to 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 the claimants is recomputed as under:- Sl. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1 Income 34,182 9960 x 12 =119520 2. Future prospects Nil Nil 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 (i.e. 11394) = 22788 (-)1/3 (i.e. 39840) = 79680 4. Multiplier (x) 7 = 159516 (x) 7 = 557760 5. Contributory negligence (-)25% (39879) = 119637 Nil 6. Other conventional heads 70,000/- Rs. 1,80,000 [18,000 +18,000 + 1,44,000 (48,000 x 3)] Total Rs. 1,89,637/- Rs. 7,37,760/- 11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.1,89,637/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to 7,37,760/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.1,89,637/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.5,48,123/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. 13. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the concerned Tribunal. The said 6 communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co- ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants reside. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai