1 CGHC010229402023 2026:CGHC:42219 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1167 of 2023 United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Divisional Manager (Division No.1), United India Insurance Company Limited, Krishna Complex, Kutchery Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur, Tehsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Ramchandra Kurre S/o Bisan Kurre Aged About 41 Years R/o Village- Lutudih, P.S.- Palari, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Purnima Kurre W/o Ramchandra Kurre Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Lutudih, P.S.- Palari, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Rukhmani D/o Ramchandra Kurre Aged About 15 Years R/o Village- Lutudih, P.S.- Palari, District- Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh, Since Minor Represented By Natural Guardian And Father - Ramchandra Kurre, R/o Village- Lutudih, P.S.- Palari, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Bhimraj Yadav Aagman Yadav R/o Village- Khapari, P.O. - Kumhari, P.S. - Kumhari, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. A. V. Deshmukh, Adv. For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Adv. BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.09.30 10:41:57 +0530 2 For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Chaitanya Gilhare, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (28.09.2026) 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant–Insurance Company challenging the award dated 21.04.2023 passed by the 14th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, Chhattisgarh in Claim Case No.275/2022, whereby the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.17,37,480/- on account of the death of Bijendra Kumar Kurre, who succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 06.11.2021. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant–Insurance Company has raised two-fold contentions. Firstly, it is contended that the deceased Bijendra Kumar Kurre was himself guilty of contributory negligence and that the Tribunal has erred in not recording any finding to that effect, despite the evidence available on record. It is submitted that Bhimraj Yadav, the driver of the offending vehicle, was examined as a witness and, in his deposition, he stated that the deceased was riding his motorcycle rashly and negligently from the opposite direction and, near Swati Silai Centre, situated at village Matiya, Police Station Kharora, District Raipur, collided with another stationary motorcycle, as a result of which he was thrown about 50 feet away and fell near his truck (offending vehicle). He further stated that, in an attempt to save the deceased, he had taken his truck considerably towards the side of the road. On the strength of the aforesaid testimony, it is contended that the deceased had also contributed to the occurrence of the accident and 3 was, therefore, guilty of contributory negligence. 3. The second contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased was an unmarried person aged about 21 years at the time of the accident and, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 50% of his income towards his personal and living expenses, instead of one-third. On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant prays for modification of the impugned award. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3/claimants submits that, after due investigation, the police had filed a charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle and there is no cogent evidence on record to establish any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. It is contended that the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle to have been rash and negligent is based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record and does not warrant any interference. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants, however, submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,800/-, which is even below the minimum wages payable to an unskilled labourer at the relevant time. It is, therefore, submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be suitably enhanced. It is further submitted that, even in the absence of any cross-objection or appeal by the claimants, this Court can award just and reasonable compensation in accordance with law. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. As regards contributory negligence, in the present case, Prem 4 Narayan Kosle, an eye-witness to the occurrence, was examined on behalf of the claimants. He has categorically deposed that the offending vehicle was being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and that Bijendra Kumar died after being hit by the offending vehicle and coming under its wheels. His testimony has remained consistent throughout and nothing material has been elicited in his cross-examination so as to discredit his version. It is further evident from the record that, after due investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against Bhimraj Yadav, the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle. As reflected from the police Final Report (Ex.P-6), Prem Narayan Kosle was cited as an eye-witness. 8. In view of the consistent testimony of the eye-witness Prem Narayan Kosle, coupled with the fact that he was a listed witness in the police case and that the charge-sheet was filed against Bhimraj Yadav, the version of Bhimraj Yadav regarding the alleged negligence of the deceased does not inspire confidence. Significantly, no such specific plea of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased appears to have been taken by Bhimraj Yadav in his written statement. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased is based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record and does not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference in appeal. Accordingly, the first contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is rejected. 10. As regards deduction, it is not in dispute that the deceased 5 Bijendra Kumar Kurre was 21 years of age and unmarried at the time of the accident. In terms of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, read with the settled principles governing assessment of compensation in the case of an unmarried deceased, half (1/2) of the income is liable to be deducted towards personal expenses. The Tribunal, however, deducted one-third of the income towards personal expenses. The said deduction, therefore, cannot be sustained and is accordingly modified from one-third to one-half. 11. The next issue concerns the assessment of the monthly income of the deceased. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant–Insurance Company has contended that, since the claimants have not filed any appeal or cross-objection, the income assessed by the Tribunal ought not to be enhanced. The said contention, however, cannot be accepted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi and Others v. Kasam Daud Kumbhar and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 237, has held that the Court is empowered to award just and reasonable compensation even in the absence of an appeal or cross- objection by the claimants. 13. In the present case, though it has been claimed by the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month by working in a hardware shop, no documentary evidence has been brought on record to substantiate the said assertion. The accident occurred on 06.11.2021 and, at the relevant time, the minimum wages prescribed even for an unskilled labourer were Rs.9,280/- per month. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is reassessed at 6 Rs.9,280/-. 14. The deceased was a non-salaried person aged about 21 years at the time of the accident. There are three claimants in the present case. 15. Having regard to the date of the accident, the age of the deceased and the number of dependants, this Court finds that the addition towards future prospects, the multiplier applied and the amounts awarded under the conventional heads by the Tribunal are in accordance with the settled principles of law and do not call for any further interference. 16. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 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, the compensation is recomputed as under:- Sl. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1 Income 7,800x12 =93,600 9,280x12 =1,11,360 2. Future prospects (+)40% (i.e.37,440) = 1,31,040 (+)40% (i.e.44,544) = 1,55,904 3. Deduction (-) 1/3 (i.e. 43,680) = 87,360 (-)1/2 = 77,952 4. Multiplier (x) 18 = 15,72,480 (x) 18 = 14,03,136 5. Funeral Expenses 16,500 16,500 6. Loss of Estate 16,500 16,500 7. Loss of Consortium 1,32,000 (44,000 x 3) 1,32,000 (44,000 x 3) Total Rs. 17,37,480/- Rs. 15,68,136/- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 7 17. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the claimants shall now be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.15,68,136/- in place of Rs.17,37,480/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The remaining terms and conditions of the impugned award shall remain unaltered. 18. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the insurance company is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent indicated herein-above. 19. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai