Chattisgarh High Court
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Smt Sunita Yadav on 29 July, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
2025:CGHC:37067
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 135 of 2024
The New India Assurance Company Limited By Branch Manager, Branch
Office Akashwani Road, Infront Of Bhadauria Bhavan, Jagdalpur, District
Bastar (C.G.) Through Authorized Signatory Manager, T.P. Claim Hub Office,
Bilaspur (C.G.)
--- Appellants
versus
1 - Smt Sunita Yadav Wd/o Late Kishore Yadav Aged About 47 Years
2 - Yashdip Yadav S/o Late Kishore Yadav Aged About 18 Years
3 - Lachhandei Yadav Wd/o Late Budhram Yadav Aged About 60 Years
All are R/o Sadakpara, Main Road Village Sonarpal P.S. Bhanpuri, Dist.
Bastar (C.G.).
4 - Gurmej Singh S/o Dilip Singh Occupation Driver, C/o Gurjeet Singh, S/o
Balwant Singh R/o Khalsa Transport Company, Tatibandh, Ring Road No.
02, District Raipur (C.G.) (Driver)
5 - Gurjeet Singh S/o Balwant Singh, R/o Khalsa Transport Company,
Tatibandh, Ring Road No. 02, District Raipur (C.G.) (Owner)
--- Respondents
MAC No. 136 of 2024
1 – Smt. Sunita Yadav Wd/o Late Kishore Yadav, Aged About 47 Years
2 – Yashdeep Yadav S/o Late Kishore Aged About 18 Years
3 – Smt. Lachhandeyi Yadav, Wd/o. Budhram Yadav Aged About 60 Years All
are R/o Sadakpara Main Road, Village Sonarpal, P.S. Bhanpuri, District
Bastar Chhattisgah.
—Appellants
Versus
1 – Gurmej Singh S/o Dalip Singh Through Gurjeet Singh S/o Balwant Singh,
R/o Khalsa Transport Company, Tatibandh, Ring Road, No. 2, Raipur District
Raipur Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Vehicle)
BALRAM 2 – Gurjeet Singh S/o Balwant Singh R/o Khalsa Transport Company,
PRASAD Tatibandh, Ring Road, No. 2, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Owner Of
DEWANGAN
Digitally signed by
The Vehicle)
BALRAM PRASAD
DEWANGAN
Date: 2025.08.12
11:01:17 +0530
2
3 – The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager,
Branch Office Akashwani, Road, Near Bhadouriya Bhawan, Jagdalpur
District Bastar Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Vehicle)
— Respondents
For Appellant (In MAC No.135/24) : Mr. B.N. Nandey, Advocate with Mr.
and Respondent No.3 (In MAC No. Priyanshu Gupta, Advocate
136/2024)
For Appellants (In MAC No. : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate
136/2024) and Respondent No.3 with Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani,
( In MAC No.135/24) Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order On Board
29/07/2025
1. Both the appeals are arising out of the same award, therefore, they
are being heard together and decided by this common order.
2. Appellant/Insurance Company has filed MAC No. 135/2024 under
Section 173 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of
1988’) challenging the impugned award dated 27.07.2023, passed in
Claim Case No.71of 2020, whereby the learned 1st Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, District – Bastar (C.G.) (for short
‘the Claims Tribunal’) has awarded compensation of Rs.33,61,024/- to
the claimants in death case. However, MAC No.136 of 2024 is filed by
the claimants for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the
learned Claims Tribunal by the impugned award.
3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that a claim application
was filed by the claimants claiming compensation of Rs.1,16,20,000/-
against the death of Kishore Yadav who died in road accident. It was
pleaded that on 09/10/2020, deceased, Kishore Yadav, was returning
to his home in Village Sonarpal from Antagarh on a Bullet motorcycle
3
bearing registration number CG 17 KS 4789, accompanied by
Shravan Yadav. On the way it dashed with stationary truck bearing
registration number CG 04 JC 5073 parked in the middle of the road
without any signal indicators, parking lights, or placing any warning
signs by non-applicant No.1. As a result, Kishore Yadav suffered
serious and fatal injuries. He later succumbed to the injuries during
treatment. It was pleaded that deceased was employed as Teacher in
the Education Department and posted as Principal at Government
Higher Secondary School, Todoki, Block Koyalibeda and was getting
monthly salary of Rs.90,000/-.
4. Non-applicant No.1 and 2 did not file any reply and they remained ex-
parte before the Claims Tribunal. Non-applicant No.3 filed reply to the
claim application denying the averments made therein. It was pleaded
that, at the time of the accident, deceased was under influence of
alcohol and was riding the motorcycle without valid and effective
driving licence. He was guilty of contributory negligence in causing the
accident.
5. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of pleadings and the
evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed the claim
application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.82,58,976/- and
fastened liability upon non-applicants to satisfy the amount of
compensation jointly and severally.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit
that the appellant/Insurance Company filed this appeal challenging
impugned award on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal fell into
error in not holding the deceased contributory negligent in the accident
4
as he dashed with stationary truck. He next contended that the learned
Claims Tribunal assessed income of the deceased on higher side.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that the
claimants/appellants have filed appeal seeking enhancement of the
amount of compensation on the ground that the Claims Tribunal erred
in applying multiplier of 11 instead of 13. He submits that according to
date of birth as available in the record i.e. in driving license of the
deceased mentioning date of birth as 05.06.1970 and thereby on the
date of accident, deceased was 50 years, 4 months and 4 days and
have not attained the age of 51 years. The learned Claim Tribunal
applied the multiplier of 11 considering the deceased in between age
group from 51 to 55 years.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the
record of claim case.
9. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company, that the learned Claims Tribunal erred
in not holding the deceased contributory negligent in accident is
concerned, perusal of the pleadings made in the claim application
would show that accident occurred on 09.10.2020 at about 8.30 PM.
The offending truck insured by appellant/insurance company was
parked on National Highway Road No.30 without there being any
indication sign or putting on the indicator light of the trucks. Copy of
FIR filed as Ex.A-2 would show that information of accident was given
within three hours of the accident. It also mentions that truck was
parked negligently on the road without there being any indication sign
or putting on the parking light. Charge-sheet was filed against non-
5
applicant No.1, driver on the same facts. To prove the pleadings of
negligence on the part of the driver of the truck and pleadings made in
the application, claimants have examined claimant No.1 Smt. Sunita
Yadav as (A.W.-1). In her evidence she stated that at the time of
accident, truck was parked negligently on the road and the motor cycle
driven by her husband dashed with truck from its rear side. Shravan
Yadav (A.W.-2), younger brother of the deceased also in his statement
made similar statement. In his evidence he stated that due to flashlight
of the vehicle coming from opposite side on the eye of the deceased,
he could not saw the truck parked on the road and dashed with it.
Non-applicant No.-3, Insurance Company has examined Pitambar
Kathar (N.A.W. 3-1), who is Investigating Officer of the crime
registered with regard to the accident of the deceased with the
offending truck. In his evidence, he stated that driver of the truck had
parked the offending truck on center of the road without turning on the
parking light and deceased dashed hise motor cycle from rear side of
truck. Spot map is also filed by the claimants as (Ex.A-3) in which also
truck has been shown to be parked on road. In view of the
aforementioned evidence available on record, it is apparent that the
truck was parked on road without there being any indication or turning
on indicator light in night at about 8.30 PM. Parking of truck and place
of accident is undisputedly a National Highway Road, crossing of the
vehicles from the opposite direction in the night with headlights on,
may be high beam cannot be ruled out. Therefore, in view of the
evidence of Shravan Yadav (AW.-2) brother of the deceased that the
accident occurred due to flashlight of the vehicle shone in the eyes of
the deceased cannot be said to be false evidence.
6
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pramodkumar Rasikbhai
Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak, reported in (2002) 6 SCC 455
while examining the issue of contributory negligence has held as
under :-
“10. It has been accepted as a valid principle by various
judicial authorities that where, by his negligence, if one
party places another in a situation of danger, which
compels that other to act quickly in order to extricate
himself, it does not amount to contributory negligence if
that other acts in a way, which, with the benefit of
hindsight, is shown not to have been the best way out of
the difficulty. In Swadling Vs. Cooper [1931] A.C. 1 at page
9, Lord Hailsham said:
11. “Mere failure to avoid the collision by taking some
extraordinary precaution does not in itself constitute
negligence: the plaintiff has no right to complain if in the
agony of the collision the defendant fails to take some
step which might have prevented a collision unless that
step is one which a reasonably careful man would fairly be
expected to take in the circumstances.”
12. Considering entirety of the facts of the case, the date, time and place
of accident and further bypassing of the motor vehicles with the
headlights on, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Claims Tribunal
has not committed any error in recording a finding that the accident is
a result of negligent parking of the offending truck on the road and the
negligence cannot be attributed on the part of the deceased. The said
finding of the learned Claims Tribunal is upon proper appreciation of
evidence available on record, hence, it does not call for any
interference. The submission of learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company that the learned Claims Tribunal erred
7
in not recording a finding that the deceased was also contributory
negligent in the accident is not sustainable and it is hereby repelled.
13. So far as the second submission of learned counsel for the
appellants/Insurance Company that learned Claims Tribunal erred in
assessing income of the deceased on higher side is concerned,
claimants have submitted certificate/estimated pay bill prepared by the
Block Education Officer and have also examined the Block Education
Officer in support of their claim and pleadings to prove the income of
the deceased. Block Education Officer Keju Ram Sinha is examined
as (AW-3). In his evidence he categorically stated that the gross salary
of the deceased was Rs.84,980/- and after deduction, he was being
paid Rs.70,836/- as net salary. For computing amount of
compensation, gross salary – minus income tax is to be taken into
consideration as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of
National Insurance Company Vs. Indira Shrivastava reported in
(2008) 2 SCC 763, has observed as under :
“19. The amounts, therefore, which were required to be
paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks,
should be included for computation of his monthly income
as that would have been added to his monthly income by
way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to
the ones which were for his benefit. We may, however,
hasten to add that from the said amount of income, the
statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be
deducted.”
14. Recently in a judgment dated 11th July, 2024 in National Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Nalini and Ors. [Petition for Special Leave to
Appeal (C) No. 4230/2019], Hon’ble Supreme Court held that,
8
allowances under the heads of transport allowance, house rent
allowance, provident fund loan, provident fund and special allowance
ought to be added while considering the basic salary of the
victim/deceased to arrive at the dependency factor.
15. Learned Claims Tribunal considered gross salary of the deceased and
has deducted tax and assessed income as Rs.79,980/-, which cannot
be said to be erroneous. Hence, the submission of learned counsel for
the appellant/Insurance Company that income of deceased assessed
by the learned Claims Tribunal to be on higher side, is not sustainable
and accordingly it is repelled.
16. For the foregoing discussions, appeal bearing MAC No. 135/2024 filed
by the appellant/Insurance Company is liable to be and it is hereby
dismissed.
17. So far as the grounds raised by the claimants/appellants in MAC
No.136 of 2024 that, the learned Claims Tribunal erred in applying the
multiplier of 11 instead of 13 is concerned, date of birth of the
deceased mentioned in the driving license (Ex.P-14 (C)) is as
05.06.1970. Upon considering age based on the date of birth available
in the government records, the age of the deceased on the date of
accident comes to 50 years, 4 months and four days, which is less
than 51 years or it can be said that the deceased has not attained the
age of 51 years. The application of multiplier has been considered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121,
and it is held that application of multiplier of 13 would apply where the
deceased who attained the age of 46 years up to 50 and multiplier of
9
11 years where deceased was 51 years of age up to 55 years. As from
the date of birth available in the record shows that the deceased was
only 50 years and 4 months and not attained the age of 51 years,
therefore the learned Claims Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier of
11. Correct multiplier would be 13. It is ordered accordingly.
18. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that learned
Claims Tribunal awarded compensation under the head of loss of
estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium by increasing 10% on
the quantified amount of compensation under those heads as
observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National
Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680, however, fell into error in not applying the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in its words and sprit. He submits
that as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court increase in the
amount of compensation under other conventional head is to be
increased 10% on completion of every three years, therefore, on the
date of passing of the award, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have
increased the compensation under other conventional head at the rate
of 20%. Submission made by learned counsel for appellants/claimants
in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pranay
Sethi (supra) appears to be correct, therefore, I find it appropriate to
enhance the amount of compensation awarded under the head of loss
of estate, for funeral expenses and for loss of consortium at the rate of
10%. It is ordered accordingly.
19. On the basis of above, compensation awarded needs recomputation,
which is as under :-
10
SN Head Amount (in Rs.).
1. Annual loss of income : 7,35,816.00
2. Loss of dependency after application of : 95,65,608.00
multiplier of 13 (7,35,816 x 13)
3. For loss of spousal and parental : 1,32,000.00
consortium to the appellants No.1 to 3
(after enhancing 10%) Rs.44,000/-
each (44,000 x 3)
4. For funeral expenses (after enhancing : 16,500.00
10%)
5 . For loss of estate (after enhancing 10%) : 16,500.00
Grand Total : 97,30,608.00
20. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be
entitled for total compensation of Rs.97,30,608.00. Any amount paid to
the appellants as compensation as per impugned award shall be
adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @
8% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization.
Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain
intact.
21. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned
stands modified to the extent indicated above.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Balram