Chattisgarh High Court
Divisional Manager, United India ... vs Smt. Setkunwar Jangde on 26 June, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:28101
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1798 of 2019
1 - Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited Tara, Complex,
G.E. Road, Power House, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, C.G. Through Authorised
Signatory, Deputy Manager, T.P. Hub, Divisional Office, United India Insurance
Company Limited, 2nd Floor Guru Kripa Towers Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur P.S.
Civil Line Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh...........(N.A.No.3)
... Appellant
Versus
1 - Smt. Setkunwar Jangde Wd/o Late Sitaram Jangde, Aged About 55 Years
Residence Quarter No. 1/a, Road No. 19, Sector 5, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil And District
Durg Chhattisgarh.............(Claimant)
2 - Rakesh Kumar Jangde S/o Late Sitaram Jangde Aged About 32 Years
Residence Quarter No. 1/a, Road No. 19, Sector 5, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil And District
Durg Chhattisgarh.............(Claimant)
3 - Manesh Jangde, S/o Late Sitaram Jangde Aged About 23 Years Residence
Quarter No. 1/a, Road No. 19, Sector 5, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil And District Durg
Chhattisgarh.............(Claimant)
4 - Roshan Jangde, S/o Late Sitaram Jangde, Aged About 22 Years Residence
Quarter No. 1/a, Road No. 19, Sector 5, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil And District Durg
Chhattisgarh.............(Claimant)
5 - Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, S/o Yogendra Singh Chauhan, Aged About 20 Years
R/o Baikunthpur, Koria, Thakul Para, Quarter No. 66, P.S. Baikunthpur, District Koria
Chhattisgarh Presently Residing At Quarter No. 1/a, Road No. 33, Sector 4, Bhilai
Nagar, P.S. Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh..................(Driver)
SHUBHAM
DEY
Digitally
signed by
SHUBHAM
DEY
2
6 - Anand Gupta, S/o Awdhesh Chand Gupta, R/o Kachahari Para, Baikunthpur,
District Koria Chhattisgarh..............(Owner)
... Non-appellants
For Appellant : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate
For Non-appellants No. 1 : Ms. Santoshi Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr.
to 4 Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate
For Non-appellant No. 5 : Ms. Shreya Daga, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dhiraj
Kumar Wankhede, Advocate
For Non-appellant No. 6 : Mr. Sudhanshu Singh, Advocate
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order On Board
26/06/2025
1. Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal challenging
the award dated 18.01.2019 passed in Claim Case No. 148/2017 by
which learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Durg (for
short 'the Claims Tribunal') has allowed claim. application of claimant in
part, awarded total compensation of Rs.52,35,332/- and fastened
liability upon non-applicants, jointly and severally, to pay the amount of
compensation to claimants.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 6.6.2016 at about 7:00 p.m.
Sitaram Jangde along with his wife was going towards Sector-2 Bhilai
on motorcycle. As soon they reached Sector 6C Market, the vehicle
bearing registration mark CG16-CE-9732, driven in a rash and
negligent manner by its driver (non-applicant No.1), dashed the
motorcycle of Sitaram Jange while overtaking a car and caused
accident. As a result, Sitaram Jangde and his wife both fell down and
sustained injuries. Both were admitted in Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai
where Sitaram Jangde died in the course of treatment. Accident was
reported in concerned police station based on which crime bearing
No.406/16 was registered against non-applicant No. 1 for alleged
offence punishable under Section 279, 337 of IPC. An application
3
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of
1988') seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.76,26,918/- with interest
was filed by claimants on the ground that at the time of accident,
deceased was 59 years of age, he was permanent employee of Bhilai
Steel Plant and getting salary of Rs.87,678/- per month. They were
dependent on earning of deceased and on account of his untimely
death, they have suffered loss of income.
3. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that the accident occurred due to
head-on collusion and as such, the deceased was equally responsible for the
accident. On the complaint of non-applicant No.1, FIR under Crime
No.383/2016 was also registered against the deceased for commission of
offence under Section 279 and 337 of IPC for driving motorcycle rashly,
negligently and causing accident. However, the Claims Tribunal has not
properly appreciated the evidence of head-on collusion and erroneously held
that the rider of offending vehicle ie. non-applicant No.1, was solely
responsible for the accident. He next contended that as the deceased was
already 59 years & 11 months of age and on the verge of retirement, the
addition of 10% towards future prospects was not warranted. Overall
compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is exorbitant and excessive,
therefore, he prays for suitable reduction.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for claimants opposing the submissions
of learned counsel for appellant Insurance company would submit that plea
of contributory negligence is to be proved by the party who is raising the
same. Except the FIR registered against the deceased and spot map, the
Insurance Company has not adduced any independent oral or documentary
evidence to prove the aspect of contributory negligence. Registration of First
Information Report against deceased alone would not be sufficient to draw an
inference that deceased was also equally responsible for the accident.
Hence, in absence of any material on record to substantiate the plea of
4
contributory negligence, the Claims Tribunal justified in holding that non-
applicant No.1, driver of offending vehicle, was alone responsible for causing
the accident.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of
the claim case.
6. Before proceeding further in view of the objection raised by the learned
counsel for the respective respondents, this Court posed query to the
learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the filing of the copy of
the F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 383/2016, P.S. Bhilai Nagar, District - Durg
registered allegedly on the basis of the complaint lodged by the Non-
Applicant No. 1. he fairly submitted that he has gone through the record from
which, it is reflecting that the said copy of the F.I.R. which has been made
part of the memo of appeal has not been filed before the learned Claims
Tribunal. The Appellant/Insurance Company have raised the plea of
contributory negligence in the reply, learned Claims Tribunal had considered
the same in Para 10 of the impugned award and held that except the plea
taken in the written statement, no other admissible piece of evidence in
support has been brought in by the Insurance Company. Contributory
negligence is a fact which is required to be proved in accordance with law.
Merely taking a plea of contributory negligence in reply of the claim
application in itself will not be read in evidence as proof.
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jiju Kuruvila and others v.
Kunjujamma Mohan and others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 166, where the
Supreme Court has held thus:
"20.5 The mere position of the vehicles after
accident, as shown in a scene mahazar, cannot
give a substantial proof as to the rash and
negligent driving on the part of one or the other.
When two vehicles coming from opposite
directions collide, the position of the vehicles
and its direction, etc. depends on a number of
factors like the speed of vehicles, intensity of
collision, reason for collision, place at which one
vehicle hit the other, etc. From the scene of the
accident, one may suggest or presume the
manner in which the accident was caused, but in
the absence of any direct or corroborative
evidence, no conclusion can be drawn as to
whether there was negligence on the part of the
driver. In absence of such direct or corroborative
evidence, the Court cannot give any specific
finding about negligence on the part of any
individual."
8. Another judgment of the Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of
contributory negligence in the matter of Minu Rout and another v. Satya
Pradyumna Mohapatra and others reported in (2013) 10 SCC 695 and
held thus:
"17. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral
and documentary evidence, has recorded the
erroneous finding by placing strong reliance
upon the charge-sheet, Ext. 1 without
considering the fact that the criminal case was
abated against the deceased and further has
made observation in the judgment that the
appellants had not produced the FIR.
Therefore, it has held that there was 50%
contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased driver in causing accident. The
Tribunal ought to have seen that non-production
of FIR has no consequence for the reason that
charge-sheet was filed against the truck driver
for the offences punishable under section 179
read with Section 302 IPC read with the
provisions of the MV Act. The Insurance
Company, though claimed permission under
Section 170(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
from the Tribunal to contest the proceedings by
availing the defence of the owner of the
offending vehicle, it did not choose to examine
either the driver of the truck or any other
independent eyewitness to prove the allegation
of contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased Susil Rout on account of which the
accident took place as he was driving the car in
a rash and negligent manner. In the absence of
rebuttal evidence adduced on record by the
Tribunal, the Tribunal should not have placed
reliance on the charge-shhet, Ext. 1 which the
deceased driver was mentioned as an accused
and on his death his name was deleted from the
charge-sheet. The Tribunal has referred to
certain stray answers elicited from the evidence
of PW 2 and PW 3 in their cross-examination
and placed reliance on them to record the
finding on Issue 1."
9. In the case at hand, no evidence has been led by the Appellant/Insurance
Company before the learned Claims Tribunal to prove the plea of contributory
negligence. In absence of any admissible piece of evidence, learned Claims
Tribunal justified in rejecting the plea of contributory negligence raised by the
Appellant/Insurance Company and recording a finding that the accident was
a result of rash and negligent driving of the two-wheeler by Non-applicant No.
5 which cannot be said to be erroneous. Hence, the submission of the
counsel for the Appellant/Insurance company that the learned Claims
Tribunal fell into error in deciding the issue of contributory negligence against
it, is not sustainable. Accordingly, it is repelled.
10. The documents filed along with the memo of appeal in support of the
contention of the contributory negligence i.e. the copy of the F.I.R. and spot
map cannot be considered in an appeal before this Court. The
Appellant/Insurance Company was a party to the proceedings, contested the
case before the learned Claims Tribunal, however, no documents in this
regard has been submitted, as filed before this Court. No explanation is
offered as to why, the said documents which were available in the challan
charge-sheet of the other crime has not been obtained during the
proceedings of the claim case.
11. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the documents filed along with the
memo of appeal to support the additional ground cannot be considered.
Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that as the deceased
was about to retire within few days, the compensation under the head of loss
of future prospects could not have been awarded.
12. The award of compensation under the head of future prospect was
considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16
SCC 680. Hon'ble Supreme Court consciously considered for an
addition of 50% of the annual salary to the income of the deceased
towards the loss of future prospects where the deceased had a
permanent job and was below the age of 40 years. The addition of
30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years and in
case, the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the
addition should be of 15%.
13. Hon'ble Supreme Court has used the specific word 'permanent job'
and a person who is in permanent job is to retire from the service also.
However, Hon'ble Supreme Court has not made any difference
between an employee or a person in permanent employment going to
retire within short period of time.
14. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the submission of the counsel
for the appellant that the claimants/non-applicants will not be entitled
for addition of 15% of the annual income towards the future prospects
as the deceased was about to retire within 24 days, is not sustainable.
Accordingly, it is repelled.
15. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of KPTCL v. C.P. Mundinamani reported in
(2023) 14 SCC 411 while dealing with the issue of entitlement of a
government employee to receive a benefit of the annual increment earned on
the last day of his service has held thus:
"17. A government servant is granted the annual
increment on the basis of his good conduct while
rendering one-year service. Increments are given
annually to officers with good conduct unless such
increments are withheld as a measure of punishment or
linked with efficiency. Therefore, the increment is
earned for rendering service with good conduct in a
year/specified period. Therefore, the moment a
government servant has rendered service for a
specified period with good conduct, in a timescale, he
is entitled to the annual increment and it can be said
that he has earned the annual increment for rendering
the specified period of service with good conduct.
Therefore, as such, he is entitled to the benefit of the
annual increment on the eventuality of having served
for a specified period (one year) with good conduct
efficiently. Merely because the government servant has
retired on the very next day, how can he be denied the
annual increment which he has earned and/or is
entitled to for rendering the service with good conduct
and efficiency in the preceding one year.
16.Admittedly, the deceased on the date of accident was in permanent
employment holding the post of Executive in Bhilai Steel Plant. The
government servants are entitled for increment either on first of
January or first of July. If the submission of counsel for the appellant is
to be accepted, the deceased was to retire on 30.06.2024 and
therefore, he may be entitled for addition of the increment to his salary
for the purpose of computing the retiral benefits which can be beneficial
for the computation of the retiral dues. Therefore, assessment of
income of the deceased for the purpose of calculating the loss of
dependency by the learned Claims Tribunal is correct and does not call
for any interference.
17.In the aforementioned facts of the case, I do not find any good ground
to interfere with the impugned award passed by the learned Claims
Tribunal. The appeal being sans merit is liable to be and accordingly,
dismissed.
18. Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-d/--/-/--------/--/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Dey
