1 CGHC010340172021 2026:CGHC:38740 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 785 of 2021 1 - Devlal S/o Bajnath Kowachi Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Dhobani A, Post Kusumkasa, Tehsil Dondi, District Balod Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Dameshwari Kowachi W/o Devlal Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Dhobani A, Post Kusumkasa, Tehsil Dondi, District Balod Chhattisgarh ---Appellants/Claimants Versus 1 - Ramesh Kumari Kumeti S/o Chattar Singh Kumeti R/o Kadme, Kodosalhebhat, District Kanker Chhattisgarh .......Owner 2 - The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, Chouhan Estate, Near Mourya Talkies, Supela, Bhilai, G. E. Road, P. S. Supela, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ........Insurer --- Respondent(s) And MAC No. 14 of 2022 The New India Insurance ( Correct Name Is Assurance) Company Limited, Through - Divisional Manager, Office Address - G.E. Road, Nearby Mourya Talkies Chauhan State, Supela Bhilai, Police Station Supela, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.)., Nearest Office Address - Nearby Ujala Bhawan, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) Policy No. - 46070031170100009450 Validity From SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.09.07 10:37:06 +0530 2 17.10.2017 To 16.10.2018 (Insurer Of Vehicle Truck No. C.G.- 19 - B.G. - 3736) ---Appellant/Insurer versus 1 - Devlal S/o Baijnath Kowachi, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Dhobni - A, Post Kusumkasa, Tahsil Dondi, District - Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Dameshwari Kowachi W/o Devlal, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Dhobni - A, Post Kusumkasa, Tahsil Dondi, District - Balod Chhattisgarh…..(Claimants) 3 - Ramesh Kumar Kumeti S/o Chhattar Singh Kumeti (Owner), R/o Kadme, North Bastar, Kodosalhebhat, Kanker (North Bastar) 494665 (Registered Owner Of Vehicle Truck No.C.G.-19-B.G.–3736)….(Owner) --- Respondent(s) For Claimants : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Adv. on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Owner : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Insurance Company : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (01.09.2026) 1. Both the appeals arise out of same award. Hence, they are being heard and decided by this common order. 2. The appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have been filed challenging the award dated 29.09.2021 passed by 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No.142/2019. 3. The gist of the claim before the Claims Tribunal was that on 21.07.2018 at about 01:00 p.m., deceased Vedram, as per 3 the instructions of his vehicle owner R.K. Kesharwani, was driving Truck bearing No. CG 04 JA 1450 on the left side of the road from Bhanupratappur towards Antagarh for delivering goods. When he reached near Village Kirani S- Mod, deceased Vedram parked the truck tipper on the roadside and switched off the engine. At that very moment, the driver of the offending Truck bearing No. CG 19 BG 3736, namely Bhavesh Kunjam, coming from the opposite direction, drove the said vehicle rashly and negligently and dashed it forcefully, causing the accident, due to which both Vedram and Bhavesh sustained grievous injuries and died as a result thereof. A report of the said incident was lodged at Police Station Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker. 4. The claimants of deceased Vedram had filed a claim application before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 57,60,000/-. The learned Claims Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence available on record, calculated the compensation as Rs. 15,89,000/- vide the impugned award. The Claims Tribunal also found 50% contributory negligence on the part of both drivers, and therefore awarded total compensation of Rs. 7,94,500/- for the death of Vedram along with interest @ 9% per annum. The Claims Tribunal further found that there was a breach of policy conditions by driver Bhavesh, and therefore also passed an order of pay and recover against Ramesh Kumar Kumeti, owner of Truck bearing registration No. CG 19 BG 3736. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants argued that the finding of the Claims Tribunal regarding contributory negligence on the part of deceased Vedram is not sustainable. Since there is no eyewitness in this case and deceased Vedram was not 4 at fault at the time of the accident, the finding of contributory negligence may be set aside. His second argument is that the Tribunal has granted a lesser amount under the conventional heads, which may be suitably enhanced. 6. Opposing the appeal of the claimants, learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that there was a head-on collision between the vehicles. Both the vehicles were in running condition on the road and were not parked, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that there was contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles is just and proper. She further submits that while assessing the income of deceased Vedram, the Claims Tribunal assessed his income at Rs. 10,000/- per month, which is on the higher side and needs to be reduced. Hence, the amount of compensation needs to be suitably reduced. 7. I have heard both the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 8. On 21.07.2018, vehicle bearing registration No. CG 04 JA 1450 was driven by deceased/driver Vedram and vehicle bearing registration No. CG 19 BG 3736 was driven by deceased/driver Bhavesh. The claim petition was filed in respect of Vedram. The New India Assurance Company Limited was the insurer of offending vehicle i.e. truck bearing registration No. CG 19 BG 3736. There was a head- on collision between the vehicles. FIRs were registered by both parties. Neither party examined any eyewitness. Since the drivers of both vehicles died, the police submitted a closure report. In paragraph 20 of its award, the learned Tribunal found rash and negligent driving on the part of 5 both drivers and therefore recorded a finding of contributory negligence, which in the considered opinion of this Court is just and proper and requires no interference. 9. It is undisputed that deceased Vedram was a driver. Hence, he falls under the category of skilled individual. It is pertinent to note that on the date of the accident i.e. 21.07.2018, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the Office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of a skilled person was Rs. 9,530/-. The Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000/-, which cannot be said to be on the higher side. Hence, the contention of learned counsel for the Insurance Company is not sustainable on this point. 10. The next contention of learned Counsel for the Claimants is that the Claims Tribunal has awarded lesser amount under other conventional heads. It is true that the Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs.77,000/- under other conventional heads which ought to be Rs.1,10,000/- as per National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi1, to that extent the impugned award needs to be modified. 11. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of Pranay Sethi (Supra), 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:- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 6 Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1 Income Rs. 10000 x 12 = 1,20,000/- Rs. 10000 x 12 = 1,20,000/- 2. Future prospect (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 48,000) = 1,68,000/- (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 48,000) = 1,68,000/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/2 (i.e. 84000) = 84,000/- (-) 1/2 (i.e. 84000) = 84,000/- 4. Multiplier (x) 18 = 15,12,000/- (x) 18 = 15,12,000/- 5 Other conventional heads Rs. 77,000/- Rs. 1,10,000/- (15000+15000+800 00) Total Rs. 15,89,000/- Rs. 16,22,000/- 6 Deduction towards Contributory Negligence (1/2) Rs. 7,94,500/- Rs. 8,11,000/- 12. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.7,94,500/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.8,11,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.7,94,500/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.16,500/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case before the Claims Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 7 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the claimants is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. 14. 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