1 CGHC010395132023 2026:CGHC:42220 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2024 of 2023 1 - Smt. Hamin Ghankhar D/o Ghansyam, Aged About 40 Years R/o Rewadhih Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ghansyam Ghankhar S/o Jhaduram Ghankhar Aged About 45 Years R/o Rewadhih Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - Nandani W/o Manoj Aged About 25 Years R/o Rewadhih Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - Manisha D/o Ghansyam Aged About 23 Years R/o Rewadhih Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 5 - Nisha D/o Ghansyam Aged About 18 Years R/o Rewadhih Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 6 - Hathiyarin Bai Ghankhar W/o Late Jhaduram Aged About 70 Years R/o Rewadhih Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Ramgopal Yadav S/o Arjun Lal, R/o Ward No. 4 Post Office Chwk, Dongargaon Road Chhurriya, District Rajnandgoan Chhattisgarh. (Owner) 2 2 - Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Beside L.I.C, Office Near Railway Station Rajnandgoan, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (28.09.2026) 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 20.10.2023, passed in Claim Case No.112/2021, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.16,89,800/- as compensation for the death of Late Kanhaiya Ghankhar, who died in a road accident which took place on 18.10.2019. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.10.2019, deceased Kanhaiya Ghankhar had gone to the house of his grandfather situated at Village Baputola on his motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG-08-AL-4562 to celebrate 3 Dussehra. Thereafter, he was proceeding along with Mukesh Ghankhar on his motorcycle to witness the Dussehra celebrations. When they reached near Ghodhare Rice Mill, the driver of motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG-08-AM-1509, driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of deceased, thereby causing the accident in which the deceased succumbed to the injuries. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.1-Ramgopal Yadav and was insured with respondent No.2-Oriental Insurance Company. 3. A claim petition was filed by the appellants/claimants who happen to be the legal heirs (mother, father, three sisters and grand mother) of the deceased claiming a compensation of Rs.344,70,000/- inter alia pleading that the deceased at the relevant time was young unmarried boy aged about 21 years, he was doing dairy business and earning Rs.42,000/- per month. 4. Pleading of the claimants have, however, been denied by the respondent No.1 and respondent No.2/insurance company. 5. After evaluating the evidence available on record, the 4 Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.16,89,800/- along with interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the appellants/claimants taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month and Rs.96,000/- per annum, taking 40% towards future prospect, applying the multiplier of 18 and deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and therefore liable to modified suitably. Learned counsel further submits that the deceased at the relevant time was doing dairy business and was earning Rs.42,000/- per month, however, the learned Tribunal only assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- in view of Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh for unskilled labour, which is not justified. He further submits that under the conventional heads also the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded meager compensation, which needs to be enhanced suitably. It has been also submitted that the learned Tribunal has held that there was a breach of the policy conditions of driving license and has consequently 5 exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability, therefore, an appropriate direction for pay and recover may kindly be issued against the Insurance Company. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has filed cross- appeal against the impugned award and relying upon the decision of this Court passed in the matter of Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Parwati Tandan & Ors (MAC No.1458/2019 decided on 23.04.2026), submits that there is no specific pleading of the Insurance Company as to in what manner there was breach of policy conditions, and in absence of any specific pleading, the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from its liability under the insurance policy. He also submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in not taking into consideration the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. It is contended that the deceased also contributed to the occurrence of the accident by his own negligence. Therefore, an appropriate finding with regard to the contributory negligence of the deceased may kindly be recorded. 8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/Insurance Company has duly assisted the Court. 6 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. In the case in hand, there is no specific pleading of driver/owner. According to the particular of driving license (Ex.D-1), on the date of accident, the respondent No.1/driver was having LMV license. However, the offending vehicle was a two-wheeler, for which the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the relevant time. Further, respondent No.1/owner Ram Gopal has not made any specific pleading in his written statement with regard to the driving license. Therefore, the case law relied upon by learned counsel for respondent No.1 in Smt. Parwati (supra) would be of no help to him. 11. As regards the question of contributory negligence of the deceased, the charge-sheet was filed against respondent No. 1, and the evidence led by the claimants also attributes negligence to respondent No. 1. The said evidence has remained unrebutted. Furthermore, the driver of the offending vehicle did not enter the witness box to rebut the evidence adduced by the claimants. In these circumstances, there is no sufficient material on record to establish any 7 contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that the deceased was not guilty of contributory negligence calls for no interference. 12. As regards the monthly income of the deceased, in the present case, the claimants pleaded before the Claims Tribunal that deceased, Kanhaiya Dhankhar was doing dairy work and earning Rs.42,000/- per month. However, no documentary evidence was adduced to substantiate this claim. The learned Tribunal has indeed taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- 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.8,600/- 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. 13. The learned claims Tribunal, considering the nature of work of deceased at the time of accident 18.10.2019, the fact that he was aged 21 years, and number of dependents (06), has rightly taken future prospect of 40%, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applied multiplier of 18. 8 14. The learned claims Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate, Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.44,000 towards consortium only to parents of the deceased, which in the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the date of accident 18.10.2019 and the case law governing the issue, is not found to be justified and needs to be modified suitably. 15. 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. 8000 x 12 = Rs.96,000/- Rs. 8600 x 12 = Rs.1,03,200/- 2. Future prospect (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 38,400/-) = Rs.1,34,400/- (+)40% (i.e. Rs. 41,280/-) = 1,44,480/- 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 (i.e. 44,800/-) = 89,600/- (-) 1/3 (i.e. 48,160/-) = 96,320/- 4. Multiplier (x) 18 = 16,12,800/- (x) 18 = 17,33,760/- 1(2017) 16 SCC 680 2(2009) 6 SCC 121 3(2018) 18 SCC 130 9 5 Towards consortium to all 06 claimants Rs.44,000 /- Rs. 40,000 x 6 = Rs.2,40,000/- 6. Towards Loss of Estate. Rs.16,500/- Rs.15,000/- 7. Towards funeral expenses. Rs.16,500/- Rs.15,000/- Total Rs. 16,89,800/- Rs. 20,03,760/- 16. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.16,89,800/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.20,03,760/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.16,89,800/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.3,13,960/-. 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. 17. In the result, this Court pass the following order.:- (i) The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. (ii) The cross-appeal filed by the respondent No.1/Driver is dismissed. 10 (iii) 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 pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2026.09.29 16:38:41 +0530