Chattisgarh High Court
Narendra Sahu vs Rakesh Vishwakarma on 19 June, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2025:CGHC:25893
Digitally signed
by RAVVA UTTEJ
KUMAR RAJU
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Order Reserved on 24.03.2025.
Order Passed on 19.06.2025
MAC No. 1557 of 2017
1 - Narendra Sahu S/o Shri Yado Ram Sahu, aged about 40 years, R/o
Village Bagtarai Tehsil Dhamtari District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh).
2 - Vinay Kumar S/o Shri Narendra Sahu aged about 10 years, minor through
their natural guardian i.e. father Narendra Sahu R/o Village Bagtarai Tehsil
Dhamtari District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh).
3 - Ku. Himani Sahu D/o Shri Narendra Sahu aged about 06 years, minor
through their natural guardian i.e. father Narendra Sahu R/o Village Bagtarai
Tehsil Dhamtari District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh).
... Appellants/Claimants
Versus
1 - Rakesh Vishwakarma S/o Shri Punit Ram aged about 35 years, R/o
village Amethi, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (CG). Driver of Tractor No. C G/
05/X/4164 & Trolley No. CG/05/X/6588.
2 - Bheem Lal Sahu S/o Shri Ramadhar Sahu aged about 32 years, R/o
Village Darri, Police Station Arjuni District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh . Owner of
Tractor No. CG/ 05/X/4164 & Trolley No. CG/05/X/6588.
3 - The United India Insurance Company Limited , Krishna Complex, Kachery
Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Insurer of Tractor No. CG/05/X/
4164 & Trolley No. CG/05/X/6588.
... Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate.
2
Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
C.A.V. Order
1. The Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the
Claimants/appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1988’) questioning the
legality and propriety of the award dated 05.09.2017 passed by the
Court of Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Dhamtari, District-Dhamtari
(C.G.) in Claim Case No. 51/2016, whereby the learned Tribunal while
allowing the claim in part has awarded the total amount of
compensation to the tune of Rs. 19, 87, 836/- with interest @ 6% per
annum, in favour of the appellants/claimants.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 28.11.2015 at about 3.30
pm, the wife of appellant No. 1 i.e., mother of the appellants No. 2 & 3
(Smt. Tara Sahu) was on her way after duty hours in Government
Middle School, Kalartarayee to her house by driving vehicle Plezer No.
CG/05/L/9357 and when she reached at Petrol Pump Colliery at that
time, the offending vehicle Tractor bearing registration No.
CG/05/X/4164 & Trolley No. CG/05/X/6588 being ridden by respondent
No.1 very rashly and negligently dashed her vehicle badly from the
back side, due to which she got grievous injuries on her stomach, waist
and was rushed to Bathena hospital, looking to her serious condition,
she was shifted to MMI, Raipur hospital and during the course of
treatment, she demised on 22.12.2015. F.I.R. regarding the alleged
accident was lodged at Police Station- Mekahara, Raipur, which was
transferred to Police Station Arjuni, based upon which crime bearing
No. 41/2016 under sections 279 and 304 of IPC was registered against
3
respondent No.1-driver.
3. On account of aforesaid accident, the appellants/claimants instituted a
claim petition under section 166 of the Act of 1988 by submitting inter
alia that the deceased was a 35 years old at the time of death, was
taking care of herself and her family as she was working as a lecturer
in Government Middle School, Kalartarayee by earning an income of
Rs.32,324/- per month. Thus, she used to earn Rs. 3,87,888/- per
annum. Since the age of the deceased was 35 years, according to the
multiplier of 16, there has been a loss of income and dependency of
Rs. 3,87,888 x 16= 62,06,208/-. Therefore, total amount of
compensation to the tune of Rs. 01,96,73,000/- has been claimed
under various heads.
4. Learned Claims Tribunal after appreciating oral and documentary
evidence awarded a sum of Rs. 19,87,836/-. Hence, this appeal filed
by the claimants.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the
impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is partly bad-
in-law as well as facts available on record. The learned Claims Tribunal
failed to see that the claimants have examined witnesses and have
proved their case, therefore, entire claim ought to have been decreed
in favour of the claimants. The respondents have not produced any
evidence and not discarded the evidence put by the appellants,
therefore, the entire claim ought to have been decreed. The Learned
Claims Tribunal has not properly awarded the compensation. Looking
to the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Claims Tribunal
has not awarded proper compensation towards the expenses incurred
on account of medical. The learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded
4
the compensation in respect of future prospects such as promotion,
enhancement of pay revision/salary etc. The learned Claims Tribunal
has also totally ignored the dicta laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court
and allowed compensation by taking plea of contributory negligence
without any sufficient material, therefore, the impugned award deserves
to be enhanced suitably in the light of law laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay
Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and also learned Tribunal has
erred in awarding interest on the amount of compensation at only 6 %,
whereas it should have been awarded @ 9 %.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3/The
United India Insurance Company has vehemently opposed the
contentions raised by the counsel for the appellants/claimants,
supported the impugned award and submits that the impugned award
has been passed by the Tribunal after minutely appreciating the oral
and documentary evidence on record and rightly awarded just and
proper compensation and also rightly fastened liablily of only 50 % on
insurance company according to the Contributory and Negligence Act.
Being so, this appeal is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed.
7. Heard counsel for the respective parties and perused the material
available on record.
8. The learned Claims Tribunal has framed five issus on the basis of
pleadings of the parties, out of these issues, the important issues are
issues No. 1 & 2 which are reproduced hereinunder for ready
reference:-
वादप्रश्न निष्कर्ष
01. क्या अनावेदक क्रमांक 01 द्वारा दिनांक हों। हाँ। किंतु यह घटना
5
किंतु यह घटना 28/11/2015 को करीब अनावेदक क.01 एवं
3:30 बजे आदि पेट्रोल पंप अनावेदक क.01 मृतिका की बराबर-2 की
एवं मृतिका कोलियारी के पास वाहन ट्रेक्टर योगदायी उपेक्षा का
क.सी.जी. की बराबर-2 की योगदायी परिणाम थी।
/05/एक्स/4164 एवं ट्राली क.सी.जी./05/
उपेक्षा का परिणाम थी।एक्स/6588 को
उतावलेपन या उपेक्षापूर्ण ढंग से चालन कर
अपने प्लेजर कमांक सी.जी.05 एल. 9357
से जा रही श्रीमति तारा साहू को टक्कर मारा
जिससे श्रीमति तारा साहू को चोट लगने से
उसकी मृत्यु हुई?
02. क्या घटना दिनांक को मृत्तिका श्रीमति तारा मृतिका की उम्र 35 वर्ष
साहू की मृतिका की उम्र 35 वर्ष थी उम्र 35 थी तथा उसकी मासिक
वर्ष थी तथा वह शासकीय माध्यमिक शाला आय 30,848/- रूपये
तथा उसकी मासिक आय कलारतराई में थी।
शिक्षक पचांयत के नियमित पद पर
30,848/- रूपये थी। कार्य करते हुए
प्रतिमाह 32,324/- रूपये आय प्राप्त करती
थी?
9. The learned Claims Trbiunal finds that the deceased is also liable for
the accident. As per injury report Ex. P/09 it was written that the “injury
occurred due to the motorcycle slipping and the tractor trolley coming
from behind running over the body on the stomach”. The learned
Claims Tribunal on the basis of this injury report finds that the
deceased is also liable for the accident, as such it fastened 50 %
liablility on insurance company.
10. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the claimants have
filed certified copy of criminal case vide Exs. P/01 to P/09 and as per
F.I.R. Ex. P/02, the driver of the vehicle i.e., respondent No. 01 drove
the offending vehicle in a very rash and negligent manner, due to which
the accident occurred and the deceased Tara Sahu was dashed by the
6
driver of the Tractor bearing registration No. CG/05/X/6588. After
completion of investigation, the police filed final report Ex. P/01 against
the driver of the tractor i.e., non-applicant No. 1/respondent No. 1-
Rakesh Vishwakarma and it is also clear from record that the
respondent No. 01/non applicant No. 01 did not appear before the
learned Claims Tribunal for examination, but the learned Claims
Tribunal did not appreciate this fact that witness No. 1 Sanjay Baradia
stated against the driver of tractor i.e., respondent No. 01, as such the
appellants/claimants have filed the oral and documentary evidence
against the non-applicant No. 01/respondent No. 01 the driver of the
offending vehicle, but the learned Claims Tribunal did not appreciate
this fact and without any sufficient material finds that the deceased is
also liable for this accident. This finding is perverse and not sustainable
in the eye of law. Issue No. 01 is reproduced herein as under:-
वादप्रश्न निष्कर्ष
01. क्या अनावेदक क्रमांक 01 द्वारा हाँ। किंतु यह घटना
दिनांक हों। किंतु यह घटना अनावेदक
28/11/2015 को करीब 3:30 क.01 एवं मृतिका
बजे आदि पेट्रोल पंप अनावेदक की बराबर-2 की
क.01 एवं मृतिका कोलियारी के योगदायी उपेक्षा का
पास वाहन ट्रेक्टर क.सी.जी. की परिणाम थी।
बराबर-2 की योगदायी
/05/एक्स/4164 एवं ट्राली
क.सी.जी./05/ उपेक्षा का
परिणाम थी।एक्स/6588 को
उतावलेपन या उपेक्षापूर्ण ढंग से
चालन कर अपने प्लेजर कमांक
सी.जी.05 एल. 9357 से जा
रही श्रीमति तारा साहू को टक्कर
7
मारा जिससे श्रीमति तारा साहू
को चोट लगने से उसकी मृत्यु
हुई?
11. As regards contributory negligence, learned Tribunal considering the
medico legal certificate of Ex. P/09 wherein it is mentioned that the
motorcycle got slipped, the tractor trolley coming from behind ran over
the deceased, she sustained injury and the fact that this certificate has
been duly proved by AW/03- Anita Agrawal, who came to the conlusion
that the accident occurred as the deceased lost control over her
vehicle and the offending vehicle coming from behind ran over her. In
these circumstances, in view of the oral and documentary evidence on
record, the learned Tribunal held that the accident was a result of
contributory negligence of both non-applicant/respondent No. 01 and
the deceased. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the
overall evidence on record, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in
this finding of the learned Tribunal.
12. As regards income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal considering
the oral and documentary evidence produced by the claimants in this
regard, rightly assesed her income as Rs. 30,848/- per month. Further,
the Tribunal has committed no illegality in making 1/3 rd deduction
towards personal and living expenses of the deceased in view of the
number of the defendants i.e., 03. Though, the Tribunal has rightly
applied the multiplier of 16 considering the age of the deceased as 35
years, however it has fallen into error by not awarding any amount
towards future prospects as the deceased was a permanent
government servant. The Tribunal ought to have awarded 40% towards
future prospects in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
8
the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported
in (2017) 16 SCC 680. So far as the amount of Rs. 15,000/- awarded
towards medical expenses is concerned, in view of second schedule of
163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the same cannot be faulted
with. However, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding meager
amount under the conventional heads, therefore, the
claimants/appellants are held entitled for compensation as under:-
Sl. Head Calculation (in rupees)
No.
01. Income of the deceased @ Rs. 3,70,176/- per annum.
Rs. 30,848/- per month.
02. 40% of the above added Rs. 5,18,786/-
towards future prospects.
(Rs. 3,70,176 + 1,48,070/-)
03. 1/3rd deduction towards Rs. 3,45,857/-
personal and living
expenses of the deceased
(5,18,786- 1,72,929/- )
04. Mulltiplier 16
05. Total loss of dependency Rs.3,45,857x16=
55,33,712/-
06. Funeral Expenses 15,000/-
Loss of Estate 15,000/-
Loss of parental and
spousal consortium to
claimants 40,000x3 (1,20,000/-)
Medical Expenses 15,000/-
Total compensation awarded Rs. 56,98,712/-
13. In view of the aforesaid calculation, the total compensation comes to
Rs 56,98,712/-, however, since this Court has already held that the
deceased herself was equally negligent in causing the accident, as such
9
after making 50% from the above amount, the claimants are held
entitled for a total compensation of Rs 28,49,356/-. Since the Tribunal
has already awarded Rs. 19,87,836/-, after deducting the same the
claimants/appellants are entitled for enhanced amount of Rs. 8,61,520/-.
This additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% p.a.
from the date of filing of claim application till realization.
14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and respondent No. 03 is
directed to pay compensation to appellants/claimants within 03 months
from today, failing which 9% interest would be applicable. With the
aforesaid direction, the award impugned stands modified to the extent
indicated above.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
Judge
U.K. Raju