1 CGHC010134102023 2026:CGHC:32752 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 673 of 2023 1 - Haridas Manikpuri S/o Tuladas Manikpuri Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Chakapendra, Post Sambalpur, Tahsil Navagarh, Thana Nandghat, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 2 - Anjani Bai W/o Haridas Manikpuri Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Chakapendra, Post Sambalpur, Tahsil Navagarh, Thana Nandghat, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) ... Appellants versus 1 - Vijay @ Surya Kashyap S/o Lekhram Kashyap Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Chhatauna, Thana Jarhagaon, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Motorcycle No. C.G./ 28/ K/ 2820) 2 - Ganesh Kashyap S/o Tilakram Kashyap Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Bhusandi, Thana Jarhagaon, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh Mo. 9697468789. ( (Owner Of Motorcycle No. C.G./ 28/ K/ 2820) 3 - I.C.I.C.I. Lombard Insurance Company, Devendra Nagar, Comracial Bhawan, 1st Flour, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Motorcycle No. C.G./ 28/ K/ 2820 , Policy No. 3005/175762276/00/000 Date 19.07.2019 To 18.07.2024) --- Respondent(s) SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.07.31 16:47:23 +0530 2 For Appellants : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Gunjan Rani Agrawal, Advocate and Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (29.07.2026) 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 06.03.2023, passed in Claim Case No.89/2022, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.14,66,800/- and also found contributory negligence on the part of deceased, therefore, granted Rs. 7,33,400/- as compensation for the death of Jitendra Manikpuri who was aged about 23 years and died in a road accident which took place on 25.05.2021. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding inadequate compensation. The Tribunal has failed to grant any amount towards 'future prospects'. Further, the amount awarded under other conventional heads is also on the lower side. It is, therefore, prayed that the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal be suitably enhanced. The second submission of learned counsel for the appellant/claimants is that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding the deceased guilty of contributory negligence and has accordingly deducted 50% 3 from the compensation. It is submitted that neither the owner nor the driver of the offending vehicle was examined to prove negligence on the part of the deceased, and there is no material on record to establish the same. In absence thereof, the finding of contributory negligence recorded by the Tribunal is unsustainable. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned award be set aside to that extent. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company submits that the learned Claims Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, has awarded the compensation which is on higher side. As the deceased was unmarried at the time of accident, the deduction towards personal and living expenses ought to be 1/2 instead of 1/3. It is further submitted that the driving licence of the deceased was not produced before the learned Claims Tribunal. Additionally, the father of the deceased, Haridas Manikpuri, in his statement has admitted that there was a head-on collision between both the motorcycles. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal and the finding of negligence on the part of the deceased are just and proper and call for no interference. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. In the case at hand, true it is that the learned Tribunal has not granted any amount towards future prospects which out to be 40%. Furthermore, in other conventional heads the Tribunal has granted only Rs.70,000 which ought to be 1,21,000/-. The Tribunal has also made deduction as 1/3 which ought to be 1/2, to that extent the impugned award needs to be modified. 4 6. Thus, 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. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors3, this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1 Income Rs. 9700 x 12 = 1,16,400/- Rs. 9700 x 12 = 1,16,400/- 2. Future prospect NA (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 46,560) = 1,62,960/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 (i.e. 38800) = 77,600/- (-) 1/2 (i.e. 81480) = 81,480/- 4. Multiplier (x) 18 = 13,96,800/- (x) 18 = 14,66,640/- 5 Other conventional heads Rs. 70,000/- Rs. 1,21,000/- (16500+16500+880 00) Total Rs. 14,66,800/- Rs. 15,87,640/- 7. Having considered the material available on record, including the fact that there was a head-on collision between both the motorcycles and that the driving licence of the deceased was not produced, this Court is of the view that the finding of the Tribunal regarding contributory 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 negligence on the part of the deceased is just and proper and calls for no interference. 8. Hence, in view of the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, the claimants are held entitled to 50% of the compensation of Rs. 15,87,640/-, i.e., Rs. 7,93,820/-. 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.7,33,400/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.7,93,820/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.07,33,400 /-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 60,420/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from filing of the claim application before the Claims Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. 11. 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 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 resides. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge -Shubham