1 2026:CGHC:7072 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 10 of 2017 1 - National Insurance Company Limited Branch Manager Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Through Authorised Signatory National Insurance Company Limited Divisional Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus 1 - Kandini Bhagat Wd/o Late Dhirman Bhagat, Aged About 45 Years R/o Deepu Para, P.S. Tarbahar District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mona Bhagat D/o Late Dhirman Bhagat, Aged About 23 Years R/o Deepu Para, P.S. Tarbahar District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Anuj Bhagat S/o Late Dhirman Bhagat, Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Guardian Mother Kandini Bhagat, Aged 45 Years, Wd/o Late Dhirman Bhagat, R/o Deepu Para, P.S. Tarbahar District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ...............Claimants, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Vinod Kerketta S/o Bhubneshwar Kerketta, Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Garaiband P.S. Pharsabahar District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh .............Driver Of The Motorcycle No. C.G.14/ M.A/3299, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 5 - Vinod Bhagat S/o Kiran Bhagat, R/o Village Pharsabahar District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh .............Owner Of The Motorcycle No. C.G.14/ M.A/3299, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1643 of 2016 1 - Kandani Bhagat Wd/o Late Dheerman Bhagat, Aged About 45 Years R/o Deepupara, P.S. Taarbahar, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mona Bhagat D/o Late Dheerman Bhagat, Aged About 23 Years R/o Deepupara, P.S. Taarbahar, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Anuj Bhagat S/o Late Dheerman Bhagat, Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother, Appellant No.1, R/o Deepupara, P.S. Taarbahar, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---Appellants Versus 1 - Vinod Kerketta S/o Late Bhuneshwar Kerketta, Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Garayeeband, P.S. Farsabahar, Distt. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ..............Driver Of Motorcycle C.G.14/ M A/3299, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vinod Bhagat S/o Shri Kiran Bhagat, R/o Village Farsabahar, Distt. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ..............Owner Of Motorcycle C.G.14/ M A/3299, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - National Insurance Company Limited, Through The Branch Manager, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, 3 Chhattisgarh ..............Insurer Of Motorcycle C.G.14/ M A/3299, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant-Insurance Company :- Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate For Owner and Driver :- Mr. Shivbhan Singh Banjare, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.K. Bhagat, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Judgment on Board 09.02.2026 1. Since both the above-captioned appeals, filed by the claimants and the Insurance Company, arise out of the same accident that occurred on 30.07.2012, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. As per the averments made in the claim petition, on 30.07.2012, deceased- Dhiraman Bhagat was riding his motorcycle at a moderate speed and on the correct side of the road. When he reached the main road near village Shabdmunda, at that time, non-applicant No.1- Vinod Bhagat, while riding his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-14-MA-3299 (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”), came from behind at an excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from the rear. As a result of the said collision, deceased- Dhiraman Bhagat sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately taken to the hospital for treatment, where he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. At 4 the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was owned by non- applicant No.2 and was insured with non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company. 3. On account of the death of deceased- Dhirman Bhagat, a claim petition was filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.45,26,320/-, inter alia pleading that at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 48 years and was earning Rs.27,605/- per month while working as a Head Constable in Police Line, Bilaspur. However, the learned 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, in Claim Case No.176/2013, vide award dated 30.06.2016, assessed and awarded compensation of Rs.29,11,024/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till its realization and fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company/Respondent No.3. 4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in not considering the aspect of contributory negligence. It is contended that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of both the deceased and the driver of the offending vehicle, and therefore, the liability ought to have been apportioned accordingly between the parties. However, the Tribunal failed to examine and adjudicate upon this aspect. He further submits that claimant No. 2 is a major daughter who was already employed as a 5 government teacher prior to the accident and, thus, was not financially dependent upon the deceased. Consequently, the deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, which has been assessed at 1/3rd, ought to have been taken as 1/2. On these grounds, it is submitted that the impugned award warrants interference by this Court. 5. None appears on behalf of the claimants. 6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 (owner and driver) supports the impugned award. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. So far as the plea of contributory negligence is concerned, a bare perusal of the record does not reveal any material to establish that the deceased had contributed to the occurrence of the accident. On the contrary, the evidence available on record clearly indicates that the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, which resulted in the accident and the death of the deceased. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal on the issue of negligence does not suffer from any infirmity and does not call for interference by this Court. 9. However, with regard to the objection raised by the Insurance Company concerning the dependency of claimant No. 2 – Mona Bhagat (respondent No. 2 herein), the record reveals that she was already employed as a government teacher in a primary 6 school prior to the accident and has been in service since 16.10.2007. It is also evident that she was residing separately. In such circumstances, she cannot be treated as a financially dependent member of the family of the deceased. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, has held that where the number of dependent family members is two to three, the appropriate deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-third (1/3). Accordingly, in the present case, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased shall be one-third (1/3), as determined by the Tribunal. 10. Since a separate appeal has been filed by the claimants i.e. MAC No.1643 of 2016 seeking enhancement of the award, the issue relating to deduction towards personal expenses, as observed hereinabove, shall also be taken into consideration while deciding the said appeal. 11. None appears on behalf of the claimants, despite repeated calls. 12. The claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. Upon perusal of the record, it appears that the amount awarded under the head of consortium has not been granted appropriately. There are three claimants and each of them is entitled towards loss of consortium. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.48,000/- each, i.e., Rs.1,44,000/- (Rs.48,000/- × 3), is 7 payable towards consortium in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu, reported in AIR Online 2018 SC 189. Further, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.18,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.18,000/- towards loss of estate, in accordance with the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. The loss of dependency shall be recalculated by taking the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased at one third (1/3), as observed in the connected appeal. 13. In view of above, this Court recomputes the compensation in the following manner:- S. No. Heads Calculation (in rupees) 1 Income of the deceased as assessed by the Tribunal Rs.27,605/- per month 2. 1/3 deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased Rs.9,202/- Rs.27,605/- – Rs.9,202/- = Rs.18,403/- Total Income (Rs.18,403/- x 12) Rs.2,20,836/- per annum 3. Multiplier of 13 to be applied Rs.2,20,836/- x 13 = Rs.28,70,868/- 4. Towards loss of estate (Rs.15,000/- + Rs.3,000/- with increase of 10% in every three year Rs.18,000/- 5. Towards loss of funeral expenses (Rs.15,000/- + Rs.3,000/- with increase of 10% in every three year Rs.18,000/- 6. Towards loss of consortium to claimants @ Rs. Rs.48,000/- each Rs.1,44,000/- Total Compensation Rs.30,50,686/- 8 14. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.29,11,024/-, after deducting the same from Rs.30,50,686/-, the claimants are entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.1,39,844/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 15. With the aforesaid observations and modifications, both the appeals stand disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha