1 CGHC010380032023 2026:CGHC:41731 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1965 of 2023 1 - Nilu Gond Wd/o Daduram, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Sachratola, Police Station And Tehsil Marwahi, District : Gaurela- Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vedram S/o Hansulal Gond, Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Sachratola, Police Station And Tehsil Marwahi, District : Gaurela- Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh 3 - Surajvati W/o Vedram, Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Sachratola, Police Station And Tehsil Marwahi, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Deepakdas Manikpuri S/o Bhure Lal Manikpuri Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Bade Kargi, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Driver) 2 - Jitendra Kumar Yavav S/o Vikram Yadav, R/o Village Jai Stambh Chowk, Kargi Road, Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Owner) 3 - ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Ground Floor, Commerce Building, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate. 2 For Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : None For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Aditi Diwan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (25.09.2026) 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 25.07.2023, passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.15/2022, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal after deducting 30% towards contributory negligence of the deceased, has awarded a total sum of Rs.10,93,932/- as compensation for the death of Late Daduram Gond, who died in a road accident which took place on 01.02.2022. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 01.02.2022, the deceased Daduram Gond, along with his brother-in-law (sala), namely, Dinesh Singh, had gone on a motorcycle to village Madai to attend a worship ceremony. While returning from village Madai to village Rumga at about 12:30 a.m. on the intervening night of 01/02.02.2022, the motorcycle was being ridden by the deceased, Daduram. It is alleged that the offending truck bearing registration No. CG-10/C-8326, was parked by non-applicant No.1, driver, negligently on the road at Ganjan Jungle, village Rumga, during the night, without switching on any indicator or warning lights. 3 Consequently, the motorcycle collided with the stationary truck on the road, due to which the deceased sustained injury in the said accident, and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Further case is that Dinesh Singh also sustained grievous injuries on his head and other parts of his body. He was admitted for treatment at the District Hospital, Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. After preliminary treatment, he was referred to Bilaspur for better medical treatment and was accordingly admitted to Unity Hospital, Bilaspur, where during the course of treatment, Dinesh Singh succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident on 05.02.2022. 3. A claim petition was filed by the appellants/claimants who happen to be the legal heirs (Wife, Father and Mother) of the deceased claiming a compensation of Rs.36,00,000/- inter alia pleading that the deceased at the relevant time was aged about 35 years, he was doing agricultural labour work and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. 4. Pleading of the claimants have, however, been denied by the respondent/insurance company. 5. After evaluating the evidence available on record, the Tribunal recorded the finding that deceased Daduram Gond was negligent and held that the deceased had 30% contributory negligence in the accident and thereby after deducting sum of Rs.4,68,828/- towards his contributory negligence, has awarded the 4 compensation of Rs.10,93,932/- along with interest @ 7% per annum in favour of the appellants/claimants taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.7,800/-, applying the multiplier of 16 and deducting 1/3rd i.e. Rs.43,680/- towards his personal expenses. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 6. Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned award suffers from errors of law and appreciation of evidence. It is contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in attributing 30% contributory negligence to the deceased, whereas the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of respondent No.1 and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to the entire compensation. It is further submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,800/-, whereas, on the basis of the material available on record, his monthly income ought to have been assessed at Rs.9,280/-. Learned counsel further submits that the compensation awarded under the other conventional heads is also inadequate and, therefore, the amount of compensation deserves to be suitably enhanced. 7. None for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 8. Ms. Aditi Diwan, learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposing the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error of law with respect to contributory negligence. The award impugned being just, proper and reasonable, does not call for any 5 interference by this Court. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 10. So far as the question of contributory negligence is concerned, it is noteworthy that all the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants are hearsay witnesses. The accident occurred at night about 12:30 a.m.. In such circumstances, the degree of care and caution expected from the driver of Truck is equally expected from the rider of a motorcycle. The deceased himself was riding the motorcycle at the relevant time and was, therefore, also required to exercise due care and caution while proceeding on the road. Having regard to the time of the accident, the nature of the vehicles involved and the circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and the case law referred by the learned Tribunal in the matter of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. S. Baby Latha & Ors. reported in 2020 SCC Online Madras 5103, the finding of the learned Claims Tribunal attributing 30% contributory negligence to the deceased, on the basis of the circumstantial evidence available on record, cannot be said to be adverse, perverse or otherwise improper. The ratio of contributory negligence assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal at 30:70, therefore, does not warrant any interference by this Court. Thus, argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants challenging the finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to 6 contributory negligence is not acceptable and, therefore, cannot be sustained. 11. As regards the monthly income of the deceased, in the present case, the appellants/claimants pleaded before the Claims Tribunal that the deceased Daduram Gond earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing agricultural labour work. However, no documentary evidence was adduced to substantiate this claim. The learned Tribunal has indeed taken the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.7,800/- for unskilled labourer on the date of accident. Considering the deceased as unskilled labourer, it would be proper to take his monthly income of Rs.9,280/- as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh for unskilled labour. Therefore, to that extent the impugned award needs to be modified. 12. The learned claims Tribunal, considering the nature of work of deceased at the time of accident 02.02.2022, the fact that he was aged 35 years, and number of dependents (03), has rightly taken future prospect of 40%, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applied multiplier of 16. 13. So far as the amount awarded under the conventional heads is concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,32,000/- towards consortium, Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses, which in the facts and circumstances of the case, is found to be just and 7 proper. 14. 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 Total loss of dependency Rs.13,97,760/- Income Rs.9280 x 12 =Rs.1,11,360/- plus (+) 40% Future Prospect i.e. Rs.44,544 = Rs.1,55,904/- minus (-) 1/3rd deduction towards persona expenses i.e. Rs.51,968/- = Rs.1,03,936/- x 16 multiplier = Rs. 16,62,976/- 2 Towards spousal consortium to claimant No.1 Rs. 44,000/- Rs. 44,000/- 3. Towards filial consortium to Rs.88,000/- Rs.88,000/- 1(2017) 16 SCC 680 2(2009) 6 SCC 121 3(2018) 18 SCC 130 8 claimant Nos. 2 and 3 4 Towards Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/- Rs.16,500/- 5 Towards funeral expenses Rs.16,500/- Rs.16,500/- 6. Compensation Awarded Rs.15,62,760/- Rs.18,27,976/- 6. (-) 30% Contributory Negligence as discussed in para 10 above. Rs.4,68,828/- Rs.5,48,393/- Total Rs. 10,93,932/- Rs.12,79,583/- 15. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.10,93,932/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.12,79,583/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.10,93,392-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,85,651/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application before the Claims Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 16. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. 17. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in writing 9 “the modified 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 pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2026.09.26 14:59:39 +0530