1 CGHC010196632024 2026:CGHC:34640 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1325 of 2024 United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, New Bus Stand Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer) --- Appellant versus 1. Gyandas Ramteke S/o Badhwani Das Ram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Parrikala, Ward No. 10, Rajnandgaon Tehsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ( Claimant) 2. Malti Ramteke W/o Gyandas Ramteke, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Parrikala, Ward No.10 Rajnandgaon Tehsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 3. Ajay Das Ramteke S/o Gyandas Ramteke, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village- Parrikala, Ward No.10 Rajnandgaon Tehsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 4. Surendra Kumar Minj S/o Shri Budhnath Minj, Aged About 22 Years R/o Khardhobi, Balampara, Patthalgaon District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 5. Kulbir Singh Bal S/o Harsujit Singh Bal, R/o Bombay Goods, Transport H.I.C. 30, Hirapur, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner) --- Respondent(s) BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.08.10 11:33:07 +0530 2 For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Adv. For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate MAC No. 1302 of 2024 United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office New Bus Stand Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. Appellant (Insurer ) ---Appellant Versus 1. Smt. Manorama Ramteke Wd/o Bhavdas Ramteke Aged About 54 Years R/o Village- Parrikala, Ward No. 10, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. Claimant 2. Deepak Ramteke S/o Bhavdas Ramteke Aged About 54 Years R/o Village- Parrikala, Ward No. 10, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ( Claimant ) 3. Kumari Abhilasha Ramteke D/o Bhavdas Ramteke Aged About 23 Years R/o Village- Parrikala, Ward No. 10, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant ) 4. Kumari Urvashi Ramteke D/o Bhavdas Ramteke Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Parrikala, Ward No. 10, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 5. Suraj Ramteke S/o Bhavdas Ramteke Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Parrikala, Ward No. 10, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 3 6. Surendra Kumar Minj S/o Shri Budhnath Minj Aged About 22 Years R/o Khardhobi, Balampara, Patthalgoan, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver ) 7. Kulbir Singh Bal R/o Bombay Goods, Transport H.I.C. 30, Hirapur, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner ) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Adv. For Respondents No.1 to 5 : Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (06.08.2026) 1. Both the appeals have been preferred by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 07.12.2023 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh in Claim Case Nos. 51/2022 & 49/2022. 2. MAC No.1325/2024 has been preferred against the award passed in Claim Case No.51/2022, whereby the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.32,76,295/- on account of the death of Sanjay Ramteke. MAC No.1302/2024 has been preferred against the award passed in Claim Case No.49/2022, whereby the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.75,78,442/- on account of the death of Bhavdas Ramteke who was the paternal uncle (Chacha) of deceased Sanjay Ramteke. Since both the appeals arise out of the same road accident that occurred on 30.11.2021 and involve common questions of fact and law, they are being 4 heard and decided together by this common judgment. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant–Insurance Company firstly contended that the Tribunal has erred in not recording a finding of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, Sanjay Ramteke, as well as Bhavdas Ramteke. According to him, the material available on record clearly indicates contributory negligence, which has been completely overlooked by the Tribunal. Secondly, it was argued that in MAC No.1325/2024, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased, Sanjay Ramteke, aged about 24 years, at Rs.15,000/-. It was submitted that there is no documentary evidence on record to establish such income and, therefore, the monthly income ought to have been assessed at a lower figure. Thirdly, it was contended that since the deceased was unmarried, the Tribunal ought to have deducted half (1/2) of his income towards personal expenses, instead of deducting one-third. Therefore, he prays that the impugned awards be modified accordingly. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that neither the driver nor the owner of the offending vehicle was examined to establish contributory negligence on the part of the deceased persons. It is further submitted that the police, after due investigation, filed the charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle, namely Surendra Kumar Minj, and there is no evidence available on record to establish contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Therefore, the argument of the appellant in this regard is not acceptable. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that the father of the deceased, Gyan Das Ramteke, deposed that the deceased, Sanjay Ramteke, was a meritorious student 5 pursuing the final year of the Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) course. The mark-sheet of the final year B.Sc. examination has been exhibited as Ex. P/6, the Class X mark-sheet as Ex. P/27, and the Certificate of Merit awarded by the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad has been exhibited as Ex. P/28. It is submitted that the deceased was preparing for the Public Service Commission examination and, simultaneously, was imparting coaching to students. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-, placing reliance on the judgments of Meena Pawaia v. Ashraf Ali, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1083 and V. Mekala v. M. Malathi & another, (2014) 11 ACJ 1441. It is, therefore, contended that the assessment of income made by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the appeals preferred by the appellant–Insurance Company be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It is pertinent to note that neither of the parties has examined any eyewitness to the accident. On behalf of the claimants, Gyan Das Ramteke, the father of the deceased Sanjay, was examined; however, he is not an eyewitness to the occurrence. He has merely produced certified copies of the police records, exhibited as Exs. P/1 to P/4, which reveal that upon completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against Surendra Kumar Minj, the driver of the offending vehicle. 8. On the evidentiary value of the charge sheet submitted by the Police upon completion of the investigation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited v. Rajani Sahu and Others, has laid 6 down the following proposition of law in paragraphs 8 to 10: “8 As regards the reliability of charge-sheet and other documents collected by the police during the investigation in motor accident cases, this Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 656 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 335 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 819 : 2018 INSC 311] , held in para 27, thus : (SCC p. 672) “27. Another reason which weighed with the High Court to interfere in the first appeal filed by Respondents 2 and 3, was absence of finding by the Tribunal about the factum of negligence of the driver of the subject jeep. Factually, this view is untenable. Our understanding of the analysis done by the Tribunal is to hold that Jeep No. RST 4701 was driven rashly and negligently by Respondent 2 when it collided with the motorcycle of the appellant leading to the accident. This can be discerned from the evidence of witnesses and the contents of the charge- sheet filed by the police, naming Respondent 2. This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] , noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us, filing of charge- sheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the tribunal.” 9. It is true that the Tribunal had looked into the oral and documentary evidence including the FIR, 7 final report and such other documents prepared by the police in connection with the accident in question. The Tribunal had also taken note of the fact that based on the final report, the driver of the offending truck was tried and found guilty for rash and negligent driving. The High Court took note of such aspects and found no illegality in the procedure adopted by the Tribunal and consequently dismissed the appeal. 10. In the contextual situation it is relevant to refer to a decision of this Court in Mathew Alexander v. Mohd. Shafi [Mathew Alexander v. Mohd. Shafi, (2023) 13 SCC 510 : 2023 INSC 621] , this Court held thus : (SCC p. 514, para 12) “12. …A holistic view of the evidence has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal and strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established by the claimants. The claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident. To the same effect is the observation made by this Court in Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] which has referred to the aforesaid judgment in Bimla Devi [Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC, (2009) 13 SCC 530 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 189 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1101] .” 9. In the light of the aforesaid decision, it is evident from the record that the charge-sheet has been filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. Furthermore, there is no evidence available on record to suggest that either of the deceased persons was negligent or acted rashly in any manner contributing to the accident. In the absence of any such evidence, the contention advanced by the appellant– 8 Insurance Company that the deceased persons were guilty of contributory negligence cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the plea of contributory negligence raised by the appellant– Insurance Company is rejected. 10. Insofar as the contention of the Insurance Company regarding the assessment of the income of the deceased, Sanjay Ramteke, is concerned, it is noteworthy that the deceased was about 24 years of age at the time of his death. Documents have been brought on record to establish that he was a meritorious student and was actively involved in social activities, and the authenticity of these documents has not been disputed. The Tribunal, relying upon the applicable judicial precedents, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/-. This Court does not find the said assessment to be excessive or unreasonable. Consequently, no interference with the determination of the monthly income of deceased Sanjay Ramteke at Rs.15,000/- is called for. 11. However, insofar as the deduction towards personal expenses is concerned, although the deceased Sanjay Ramteke was 24 years of age, he was admittedly unmarried. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi1 and the principles governing deduction in the case of an unmarried deceased, half (1/2) of the income ought to have been deducted towards personal expenses. The Tribunal, however, deducted only one-third of the income. Therefore, the deduction is modified from one-third to one-half in the case of the deceased, Sanjay Ramteke. 12. In MAC No.1325/2024, considering the date of incident, the age of the deceased Sanjay Ramteke and the number of 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 9 dependants, this Court finds that the addition towards future prospects, the multiplier applied by the Tribunal and the amount awarded under conventional heads are just, proper and in accordance with law. However, as discussed hereinabove, the deduction towards personal expenses is liable to be modified from one-third to 50% of the income. 13. Thus, the compensation is recomputed as under:- Sl. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1 Income 15,000x12 =180000 15,000 x 12 =1,80,000 2. Future prospects (+)40% (i.e.72000) = 252000 (+)40% (i.e.72000) = 252000 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 (i.e. 84000) = 168000 (-)1/2 = 126000 4. Multiplier (x) 18 = 3024000 (x) 18 = 22,68,000 5. Funeral Expenses 16,500 16,500 6. Loss of Estate 16,500 16,500 7. Consortium 1,32,000/- 1,32,000/- 8 Medical Expenses 87295 87295 Total Rs. 32,76,295/- Rs. 25,20,295/- 14. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the appellants/claimants in MAC No.1325/2024 shall be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.25,20,295/- in place of Rs.32,76,295/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The remaining terms and conditions of the impugned award shall remain unaltered. 15. Consequently, MAC No.1325/2024 is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. 10 16. Insofar as MAC No.1302/2024 is concerned, considering the date of the accident, the age of the deceased, Bhavdas Ramteke, and the number of dependants, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal is just, proper, and in accordance with law and does not warrant any interference. 17. Accordingly, MAC No.1302/2024 stands dismissed. 18. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the modified amount” in MAC No. 1325/2024 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 reside. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai