1 CGHC010182832023 2026:CGHC:41431 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 910 of 2023 1 - Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legal Manager, Present Address, Office No. 501 And 512, 5th Floor, D.B. City Corporate Park, Block No. 9, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Ageshwari Sahu W/o Late Shri Itwari Ram Sahu Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Dotopar, P.S. And Tahsil Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh 2 - Kiran Kumar S/o Late Shri Itwari Ram Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Dotopar, P.S. And Tahsil Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh 3 - Virendra Kumar S/o Late Shri Itwari Ram Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Dotopar, P.S. And Tahsil Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh 4 - Tomeshwari D/o Late Itwari Ram Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Dotopar, P.S. And Tahsil Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh 5 - Devendra Singh Yadav S/o Shri Ratansingh Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Yadav Bada, Gurughasidas Ward (Kumharpara), P.S. Kotwali, Jagdalpur, Tahsil And District Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh 6 - Madan Gopal Kachchhi S/o Shri Puran Lal Kachchhi, Address House No. 68, Mauli, Mata Mandir, Gandhi Nagar Ward, Jagdalpur, Tahsil And District Jagdalpur Chhattigarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Ms. Harneet Kaur Khanuja, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Adv. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.09.25 11:55:34 +0530 2 For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Adv. on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Adv. For Respondents No. 5 & 6 : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (23.09.2026) 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the appellant challenging the impugned award dated 21.11.2022, passed in Claim Case No.160/2019, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.18,54,819/- as compensation for the death of Late Itwari Ram Sahu (48 years old), who died in a road accident which took place on 24.03.2019. 2. Cross-objection/appeal has also been filed by the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 4 for enhancement of the compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant (insurer of car) firstly submits that the bike collided with a stationary car, resulting in the rider's death; therefore, the rider should be held 50% liable for contributory negligence, but the tribunal has not considered this and has fully held the driver of the offending vehicle (car) liable for negligence. The second argument is that the deceased's income was assessed too high and should be reduced accordingly. As such, the appeal is liable to be allowed, and the impugned award may be suitably modified. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 4 (legal representative of bike rider-deceased) submits that the incident occurred between 6:45 PM and 7:00 PM, when it was already dark, and the car had been parked on the road without using its indicator. A charge sheet has been filed against the driver/Devendra Singh Yadav/respondent No. 5 of the offending vehicle (car), holding them liable for negligence. Neither the driver nor the owner of the car/offending vehicle was examined to establish any contributory negligence on the part of the 3 deceased. Therefore, the Tribunal's finding attributing 100% negligence to the offending vehicle is proper and warrants no interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. In the case in hand, statements of the deceased Itwari's wife, Ageshwari Sahu, and his son, Kiran Kumar Sahu, were recorded; however, they were not eyewitnesses to the incident. Khushlal Sahu (AW-3) was examined as an eyewitness; he stated that he and the deceased had set out together on their respective motorcycles, but he stopped due to nature's call. When he resumed his journey, he heard the sound of a collision from about 100 meters away; upon investigating, he discovered that Itwari Ram had met with an accident. He subsequently reported the incident. He has supported the claim petition, and his testimony remains unrebutted. The FIR is marked as Exhibit A-1, and the final report as Exhibit A-11; the car driver, Devendra Singh Yadav, was prosecuted, which corroborates Khushlal's statement. Crucially, there is no evidence whatsoever on record to establish or suggest any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. In the absence of any cogent material or rebuttal, the contentions raised by the Appellant/Insurance Company regarding contributory negligence are legally untenable and deserve to be and are hereby rejected. 7. Addressing the contention raised regarding the quantum of compensation, it is pertinent to note that the claimants have themselves filed a cross-appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation amount, which is examined herein below: Cross Appeal/objection 8. Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 4 submits that the income of the deceased has been assessed by the tribunal is on the lower side, which needs to be enhanced at the relevant time the minimum wage was Rs. 8,140/- per month for an unskilled labour but the Tribunal has assessed only Rs. 7,000/-. He further submits that on the other conventional 4 heads, the Tribunal has granted only Rs. 1,10,000/-, which is on the lower side. As such, the compensation is liable to be enhanced suitably. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for insurance company opposes the same and submits that the compensation is on the higher side and needs to be reduced suitably. 10.In the case in hand, the accident occurred on 24.03.2019, and the deceased died on 16.04.2019; during that period, the deceased underwent treatment. Accordingly, based on medical bills Ex.A-12, 13, 15, 30, and 31, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 7,21,069/- towards medical expenses, which is not disputed. The learned Tribunal has indeed taken the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 7,000. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged about 48 years and was working as a mason; he used to earn Rs. 20,000/- per month from his work, but no documents have been produced in support of this fact; hence, it would be proper to take his monthly income of Rs.8,140/- as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh for unskilled labour. Furthermore, in other conventional heads, the Tribunal has granted only Rs.1,10,000/- which ought to be Rs.1,90,000/-, 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 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. 7,000 x 12 = Rs. 8,140 x 12 = 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 5 84,000/- 97,680/- 2. Future prospect (+)25% (i.e. Rs. 21,000) = 1,05,000/- (+)25% (i.e. Rs. 24,420) = 1,22,100/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/4 (i.e.26,250) = 78,750/- (-) 1/4 (i.e. 30,525) = 91,575/- 4. Multiplier (x) 13 = 10,23,750/- (x) 13 = 11,90,475/- 5 Other conventional heads Rs. 1,10,000/- [15,000+15,000+(80 ,000)] Rs. 1,90,000/- [15,000+15,000+(40,00 0x4)] 6 Towards medical expenses Rs. 7,21,069/- Rs. 7,21,069/- Total Rs. 18,54,819/- Rs. 21,01,544/- 12. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.18,54,819/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.21,01,544/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.18,54,819/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.2,46,725/-. 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. 13. In the result, the appeal of the appellant/insurance company is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. So far as the cross-appeal is concerned, it is partly allowed, and the impugned award is modified to the extent 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 H.L. Sahu