1 2026:CGHC:19180 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1199 of 2020 1 - Smt. Kumudini Bhoi W/o Late Gauravmani Bhoi, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Kukripali, Village And Village Panchayat Bhandarpuri, P.S. Jharbandh, District Bargarh (Orissa)..............Claimant, District : Bargarh *, Orissa 2 - Ku. Madhuri Bhoi, D/o Late Gauravmani Bhoi, Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Her Legal Guardian Mother/ Appellant No. 1/ Smt. Kumudini Bhoi, R/o Village Kukripali, Village And Village Panchayat Bhandarpuri, P.S. Jharbandh, District Bargarh (Orissa)..............Claimant, District : Bargarh *, Orissa 3 - Mahendra Bhoi, S/o Late Gauravmani Bhoi, Aged About 17 Years Minor Through His Legal Guardian Mother/ Appellant No. 1/ Smt. Kumudini Bhoi, R/o Village Kukripali, Village And Village Panchayat Bhandarpuri, P.S. Jharbandh, District Bargarh (Orissa)..............Claimant, District : Bargarh *, Orissa 4 - Shankar Bhoi, S/o Late Gauravmani Bhoi, Aged About 9 Years Minor Through His Legal Guardian Mother/ Appellant No. 1/ Smt. Kumudini Bhoi, R/o Village Kukripali, Village And Village Panchayat Bhandarpuri, P.S. Jharbandh, District Bargarh (Orissa)..............Claimant, District : Bargarh *, Orissa 5 - Smt. Shaanti Bhoi, W/o Late Ghasiya Bhoi, Aged About 67 Years R/o Village Kukripali, Village And Village Panchayat Bhandarpuri, P.S. Jharbandh, District Bargarh (Orissa)..............Claimant, District : Bargarh *, Orissa ... Appellants versus 1 - Mohd. Sheikh Hussain S/o Late Jafar Mohammad, R/o Saluja Complex, Pithora, P.S. Pithora, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) Other Address- Shubhash Nagar, Kukripali, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.................Driver, Vehicle No. C.G.04 Ln 3276, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2 - Dhanpati Vishal (D.P. Vishal), S/o Pitamber, R/o Village Sapos, KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.04.25 19:19:08 +0530 2 P.S. Sankara, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh)................Owner Vehicle No. C.G.04 Ln 3276, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Office, Commercial Building, Devendra Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh..............Insurer Vehicle No. C.G.04 Ln 3276, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Miss Swati Rani Saraf appears on behalf of Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Miss Mita Tandia appears on behalf of Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Miss Harneet Kaur appears on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 25/04/2026 1. The appellants/claimants have preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act, 1988’) calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the award dated 3.10.2019 passed by the Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.06/2018 by which liability to pay compensation of Rs.9,20,500/- has been fastened on the Insurance Company. In the present Appeal, the appellants/ claimants have prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount. 2. Miss Swati Rani Saraf, learned counsel for the appellants/ claimants would submit that the Claims Tribunal was not justified in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- and as per minimum wages at the relevant point of 3 time, his monthly income should have been assessed at Rs.7,930/-. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the Claims Tribunal has erred in holding that merely because 3 persons were sitting in the offending vehicle, it would be a case of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased which runs contrary to the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohammed Siddique and another vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others1 (para-12). As such, finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal regarding contributory negligence may be set aside and the impugned award may be modified accordingly. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned award. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. So far as contributory negligence is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohammed Siddique (Supra) has held at para-12 which reads thus:- “12. But the above reason, in our view, is flawed. The fact that the deceased was riding on a motorcycle along with the driver and another, may not, by itself, without anything more, make him guilty of contributory negligence. At the most, it would make him guilty of being a party to the violation of the law. Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, imposes a restriction on the driver of a two-wheeled motor cycle, not to carry more than one person on the motorcycle. Section 194-C inserted by the Amendment Act 32 of 2019, prescribes a penalty 1 (2020) 3 SCC 57 4 for violation of safety measures for motorcycle drivers and pillion riders. Therefore, the fact that a person was a pillion rider on a motorcycle along with the driver and one more person on the pillion, may be a violation of the law. But such violation by itself, without anything more, cannot lead to a finding of contributory negligence, unless it is established that his very act of riding along with two others, contributed either to the accident or to the impact of the accident upon the victim. There must either be a causal connection between the violation and the accident or a causal connection between the violation and the impact of the accident upon the victim. It may so happen at times, that the accident could have been averted or the injuries sustained could have been of a lesser degree, if there had been no violation of the law by the victim. What could otherwise have resulted in a simple injury, might have resulted in a grievous injury or even death due to the violation of the law by the victim. It is in such cases, where, but for the violation of the law, either the accident could have been averted or the impact could have been minimized, that the principle of contributory negligence could be invoked. It is not the case of the insurer that the accident itself occurred as a result of three persons riding on a motorcycle. It is not even the case of the insurer that the accident would have been averted, if three persons were not riding on the motorcycle. The fact that the motorcycle was hit by the car from behind, is admitted. Interestingly, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the deceased was wearing a helmet and that the deceased was knocked down after the car hit the motorcycle from behind, are all not assailed. Therefore, the finding of the High Court that 2 persons on the pillion of the motorcycle, could have added to the imbalance, is nothing but presumptuous and is not based either upon pleading or upon the evidence on record. Nothing was extracted from PW3 to the effect that 2 persons on the pillion added to the imbalance” 6. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohammed Siddique (Supra), the finding 5 recorded by the Claims Tribunal regarding contributory negligence is set aside. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, this Court is of the opinion that the Claims Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, whereas as per the minimum wages at the relevant point of time, monthly income of the deceased should have been assessed at Rs.7,930/-. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the minimum wages at the relevant point of time and that present is a death case, it would be appropriate to enhance award amount by taking monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,930/-. As such, the claimants will be entitled for the following compensation as computed by this Court:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs.6,000 x 12 = Rs.72,000/- Rs.7,930/- x 12 = Rs.95,160/- 2. Future prospect (+) 40% i.e. Rs.28,800/- = Rs.1,00,800/- (+) 40% i.e. Rs.38,064/- = Rs.1,33,224/- 3. Deduction (-) ¼ i.e. Rs.25,200/- = Rs.75,600/- (-) ¼ i.e. Rs.33,306/- = Rs.99,918/- 4. Multiplier (x) 15 = Rs.11,34,000/- (x) 15 = Rs.14,98,770/- 5. Loss of estate - Rs.15,000/- 6. Funeral expenses - Rs.15,000/- 7. Loss of consortium - Rs.44,000/- x 5 = Rs.2,20,000/- Total Rs.9,20,500/- Rs.17,48,770/- 6 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹9,20,500/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹17,48,770/- . Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹9,20,500/- , the claimants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of 8,28,270/- ₹ . The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 9. With the aforesaid modifications, the Appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Barve