1 2026:CGHC:8681 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 807 of 2024  The New India Insurance (Correct Name Is Assurance) Co. Ltd., Branch Office - Ambika Petrol Pump Campus, Ambedkar Chowk Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Bajaj Pulsor Motor Cycle Bearing Registration No. Cg 15 DW 8519) ... Appellant versus 1. Baishakhi Idgwar W/o Late Ghurna Idgwar, Aged About 50 Years (Claimant No. 1) R/o Lau, Post Sewari Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 2. Naiharsay Idgwar S/o Late Ghurna Idgwar, Aged About 33 Years (Claimant No. 2) R/o Lau, Post Sewari Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 3. Rajesh Kumar S/o Late Ghurna Idgwar, Aged About 25 Years (Claimant No. 3) R/o Lau, Post Sewari Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 4. Khelan Ram S/o Late Ghurna Idgwar, Aged About 23 Years (Claimant No. 1) R/o Lau, Post Sewari Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 5. Ronhi Idgwar W/o Late Samal Idgwar, Aged About 65 Years (Claimant No. 5) R/o Lau, Post Sewari Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 6. Abhishek Minj S/o Praveen Minj, Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Ghorgadi, Police Station And Tahsil Rajpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. (Non-Applicant No. 1) (Driver Of Bajaj Pulsor Motor Cycle Bearing Registration No. Cg 15 Dw 8519) 7. Manjeet Bakhla S/o Ramdev Bakhla, Aged About 20 Years R/o Khuntiparaa, Police Station And Tahsil Rajpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No. 2) (Owner Of Bajaj Pulsor Motor Cycle Bearing Registration No. Cg 15 Dw 8519) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/Insurance : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate holding the brief Company of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 5/ : Mr. Chandradeep Prasad, Advocate Claimants Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.02.18 16:22:06 +0530 2 18.02 .2026 1. The Insurance Company has challenged the judgment and award passed by the learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj passed in Claim Case No. 28/2022 dated 04.11.2023, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,99,420/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum on account of death of Ghurnaram Idgwar. 2. The facts in brief are that on 05.02.2022 the deceased Ghurnaram Idgwar was going to village Rajpur on his TVS Luna along with Panchu and when they reached near village Lau, rider of motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 15 DW 8519 by riding it rashly and negligently dashed the deceased, resultantly, he sustained injuries and succumbed to death. A claim case was filed by the widow, three children and mother of the deceased, wherein, they pleaded that age of the deceased was 52 years and earning Rs. 3,20,000/- per annum. The Insurance Company filed reply and took a plea that rider of both the vehicles had no valid driving licence and vehicles were being driven in contravention to the policy conditions. A plea of contributory negligence was also taken. The learned Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence, and thereafter, award was passed. 3. Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate would submit that claimants No. 2 to 4 are major sons of deceased and the learned Tribunal committed error while considering them dependants on the income of the deceased. She would contend that the learned Tribunal should have deducted 1/3rd for personal and living expenses of the deceased instead of 1/4th. She would pray to modify the award accordingly. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Chandradeep Prasad would submit that the claimants specifically pleaded and deposed that the claimants No. 2 to 4 3 were dependants on the income of the deceased. He would contend that Insurance Company failed to lead evidence to prove contrary. He would contend that appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Admittedly, claim case was filed by widow, 3 major children and mother of the deceased. The Insurance Company failed to establish the fact that the claimants No. 2 to 4, who are major sons of deceased were self employed and they were not dependant on the income of the deceased. In absence of evidence, the learned Tribunal rightly treated them dependants on the income of the deceased and deducted 1/4th looking to the number of the dependants. 7. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant