[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Kevla Bai Rathiya vs Gitesh Kumar Kanwar on 25 February, 2026

                                                         1




                                                                        2026:CGHC:9834
        Digitally
                                                                                  NAFR
ABHIGYA signed by
SAXENA ABHIGYA

                                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
        SAXENA




                                               MAC No. 1526 of 2024
                    1 - Smt. Kevla Bai Rathiya W/o Late Domra Singh Rathiya Aged About
                    37 Years R/o Village Anjoripali, Bhaisma, Tehsil- Bhaisma, P.S. Urga,
                    Distt.- Korba, C.G.
                                                                              ... Petitioner(s)
                                                      versus
                    1 - Gitesh Kumar Kanwar S/o Shri Aswani Kumar Kamwar Aged About
                    21 Years R/o Village Urga, P.S. Urga, Tehsil And Distt. Korba, C.G.
                    (Driver                              /                             Owner)


                    2 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager
                    Branch Office Transport Nagar Korba Tehsil And District Korba, C.G.
                    (Insurer)
                                                                           ... Respondent(s)

Mr. Nitesh Sahu, Advocate holding brief of For Petitioner(s) :

Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board

25.02.2026

1. The claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of

compensation, assailing the award dated 15.04.2024 passed by

the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Korba, in

Claim Case No. 96/2019, whereby the Tribunal has granted

compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,87,714/- with interest @ 7% per

annum on account of the death of Domara Singh Rathiya.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 07.05.2019, the

motorcycle of the deceased was hit by offending motorcycle

bearing Registration No. CG12 - AX - 4169. In the said accident,

Domara Singh Rathiya sustained injuries and succumbed to

death. The claimant, who is the wife of the deceased, filed a claim

petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein she

pleaded that the deceased was aged about 42 years and was

earning Rs.10,000/- per month, and claimed compensation to the

tune of Rs.27,30,000/-.

3. The insurance company filed reply and denied averments made in

the claim petition.

4. The Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and thereafter

award was passed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that, though

there was no evidence with regard to contributory negligence, the

Tribunal deducted 50% of the compensation towards contributory

negligence. He further submits that the Tribunal assessed the

income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month, which is on the

lower side. He contends that, in the absence of cogent evidence,

the Tribunal ought to have applied the minimum wage matrix. It is

also submitted that the minimum wage admissible to an unskilled

labourer in the month of May, 2019 was Rs.8,400/- per month. He

fairly submits that, under the conventional heads, the Tribunal has

rightly assessed the amount of compensation. He, therefore,

prays for enhancement of the compensation accordingly.

6. Mr. Anil Gulati, learned Advocate, opposes the submissions and

contends that there was sufficient evidence with regard to

contributory negligence. He further submits that the rider of the

offending motorcycle failed to produce a valid driving licence

before the Tribunal; therefore, the Tribunal exonerated the

insurance company and fastened the liability upon the driver-cum-

owner of the offending motorcycle. The learned Tribunal directed

the insurance company to satisfy the award and recover the same

from the driver-cum-owner of the offending motorcycle. He further

contends that the claimant could not adduce clinching evidence to

establish income of the deceased, therefore, the Tribunal

assessed income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month. It is

submitted that the Tribunal has granted just and proper

compensation and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be

dismissed.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

8. The deceased met with an accident on 07.05.2019. The insurance

company, in its reply, took a specific plea of contributory

negligence. The FIR (Ex. P-2) was lodged on 08.05.2019, wherein

it is specifically stated that the rider of the offending vehicle was

negligent. The crime detail form, however, indicates that the rider

of offending motor bike was riding his motorcycle on the wrong

side of the road.

9. Kevla Bai Rathiya (AW-01) specifically stated that the rider of the

offending vehicle was driving rashly and negligently, and in cross-

examination, the witness remained consistent. Kripa Ram Yadav

(AW-02), an independent witness, also deposed that the rider of

the offending vehicle was negligent, and this witness remained

firm during cross-examination.

10. Geetesh (NAW-01), the rider of the offending motorcycle, stated

that the deceased lost control and fell down from his motorcycle.

The Assistant Manager of the Insurance Company, in his

evidence, did not depose anything regarding negligence either on

the part of the deceased or the rider of the offending vehicle.

11. The claimant failed to produce driving licence of the deceased

before the Tribunal; therefore, the learned Tribunal held the

deceased to be negligent and decided the issue of contributory

negligence holding riders of both motorcycles equally negligent in

the ratio of 50:50. The finding recorded by the Tribunal appears to

be proper, as the claimant failed to place the driving licence of the

deceased on record. The rider of the offending vehicle

categorically stated that the deceased lost control and fell down

from the motorcycle and said piece of evidence remained

uncontroverted Thus, there was sufficient evidence to record a

finding with regard to contributory negligence.

12. With regard to income, the Tribunal assessed the income of the

deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month, which is certainly on the lower

side. In the absence of evidence, the Tribunal ought to have

applied the minimum wage matrix. The minimum wage for an

unskilled labourer in the month of May, 2019 was Rs.8,400/- per

month, and this figure should have been taken into consideration

by the Tribunal while determining the income of the deceased.

Under other heads, the Tribunal has awarded just and proper

compensation.

13. Thus, the compensation requires reconsideration to assess the

income and the same is revisited hereinbelow :-

                                    Compensation       Compensation
  Sr.
                 Heads              awarded          by awarded   by   this
  No.
                                    Tribunal           Court
                                       Rs.48,000/-       Rs. 1,00,800/-
   1. Annual Income
                                    (@Rs.4,000 pm)      (@Rs. 8,400 pm)
                                      Rs. 12,000/-        Rs. 25,200/-
   2. Future Prospect
                                         (@25%)             (@25%)
        Annual   income     after
                                         Rs.30,000/-       Rs. 63,000/-
   3. Deduction          Towards
                                           (@1/2)             (@1/2)
        Personal Expenses
        Annual Income after           Rs. 4,20,000/-       Rs. 8,82,000/-
   4.
        Applying Multiplier              (@14)                (@14)
   5.   Treatment of Deceased         Rs.71,428/-         Rs.71,428/-
   6.   Loss of Consortium            Rs.48,000           Rs. 48,000/-
   7.   Funeral Expenses              Rs.18,000/-         Rs.18,000/-
   8.   Loss of Estate                Rs.18,000/-         Rs.18,000/-
               Total                 Rs.5,75,428/-       Rs.10,37,428/-

14. Since 50% deduction is required to be made on account of

contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, the

compensation earlier determined by the Tribunal was

Rs.2,87,714/- (Rs.5,75,428 ÷ 2).

15. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs.2,87,714/- awarded by the

Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.5,18,717/- (Rs.10,37,428 ÷ 2).

Thus, the appellants shall be entitled to an additional

compensation of Rs.2,31,000/-. The Insurance Company is

directed to pay the additional compensation assessed

hereinabove within a period of 60 days.

16. The insurer shall satisfy the award first and would be at liberty to

recover the same from the driver/owner of the offending vehicle.