THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE ( Correct name is Assurance) COMPANY LIMITED, vs DEVLAL

1
Digitally signed
by SHUBHAM
SINGH
RAGHUVANSHI
Date:
2026.09.07
10:37:06 +0530
SHUBHAM
SINGH
RAGHUVANSHI

CGHC010340172021 2026:CGHC:38740
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 785 of 2021
1 - Devlal S/o Bajnath Kowachi Aged About 45 Years R/o Village
Dhobani A, Post Kusumkasa, Tehsil Dondi, District Balod
Chhattisgarh
Smt. Dameshwari Kowachi W/o Devlal Aged About 40 Years R/o
2 -
Village Dhobani A, Post Kusumkasa, Tehsil Dondi, District Balod
Chhattisgarh
--- Appellants/Claimants
Versus
1 - Ramesh Kumari Kumeti S/o Chattar Singh Kumeti R/o Kadme,
Kodosalhebhat, District Kanker Chhattisgarh ....... Owner
The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager,
2 -
Chouhan Estate, Near Mourya Talkies, Supela, Bhilai, G. E. Road, P.
S. Supela, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ........ Insurer
--- Respondent(s)
And
MAC No. 14 of 2022
The New India Insurance ( Correct Name Is Assurance) Company
Limited, Through - Divisional Manager, Office Address - G.E. Road,
Nearby Mourya Talkies Chauhan State, Supela Bhilai, Police Station
Supela, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.)., Nearest Office Address -
Nearby Ujala Bhawan, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg, District -
Durg (C.G.) Policy No. - 46070031170100009450 Validity From

2
17.10.2017 To 16.10.2018 (Insurer Of Vehicle Truck No. C.G.- 19 -
B.G. - 3736)
---Appellant/Insurer
versus
1 - Devlal S/o Baijnath Kowachi, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village
Dhobni - A, Post Kusumkasa, Tahsil Dondi, District - Balod
Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
2 - Smt. Dameshwari Kowachi W/o Devlal, Aged About 40 Years R/o
Village Dhobni - A, Post Kusumkasa, Tahsil Dondi, District - Balod
Chhattisgarh….. (Claimants)
3 - Ramesh Kumar Kumeti S/o Chhattar Singh Kumeti (Owner), R/o
Kadme, North Bastar, Kodosalhebhat, Kanker (North Bastar) 494665
(Registered Owner Of Vehicle Truck No.C.G.-19-B.G.–3736)….( Owner )
---
Respondent(s)
For Claimants : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Adv. on behalf of
Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate
For Owner : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate
For Insurance Company : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Adv. on behalf of
Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
(01.09.2026)
1. Both the appeals arise out of same award. Hence, they are
being heard and decided by this common order.
2. The appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 have been filed challenging the award dated
nd
29.09.2021 passed by 2 Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, District Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No.142/2019.
3. The gist of the claim before the Claims Tribunal was that on
21.07.2018 at about 01:00 p.m., deceased Vedram, as per

3
the instructions of his vehicle owner R.K. Kesharwani, was
driving Truck bearing No. CG 04 JA 1450 on the left side of
the road from Bhanupratappur towards Antagarh for
delivering goods. When he reached near Village Kirani S-
Mod, deceased Vedram parked the truck tipper on the
roadside and switched off the engine. At that very moment,
the driver of the offending Truck bearing No. CG 19 BG
3736, namely Bhavesh Kunjam, coming from the opposite
direction, drove the said vehicle rashly and negligently and
dashed it forcefully, causing the accident, due to which both
Vedram and Bhavesh sustained grievous injuries and died
as a result thereof. A report of the said incident was lodged
at Police Station Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar
Kanker.
4. The claimants of deceased Vedram had filed a claim
application before the Tribunal claiming compensation of
Rs. 57,60,000/-. The learned Claims Tribunal, on a close
scrutiny of the evidence available on record, calculated the
compensation as Rs. 15,89,000/- vide the impugned award.
The Claims Tribunal also found 50% contributory
negligence on the part of both drivers, and therefore
awarded total compensation of Rs. 7,94,500/- for the death
of Vedram along with interest @ 9% per annum. The Claims
Tribunal further found that there was a breach of policy
conditions by driver Bhavesh, and therefore also passed an
order of pay and recover against Ramesh Kumar Kumeti,
owner of Truck bearing registration No. CG 19 BG 3736.
5. Learned counsel for the claimants argued that the finding of
the Claims Tribunal regarding contributory negligence on
the part of deceased Vedram is not sustainable. Since there
is no eyewitness in this case and deceased Vedram was not

4
at fault at the time of the accident, the finding of
contributory negligence may be set aside. His second
argument is that the Tribunal has granted a lesser amount
under the conventional heads, which may be suitably
enhanced.
6. Opposing the appeal of the claimants, learned counsel for
the Insurance Company argued that there was a head-on
collision between the vehicles. Both the vehicles were in
running condition on the road and were not parked,
therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that there was
contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of both
the vehicles is just and proper. She further submits that
while assessing the income of deceased Vedram, the Claims
Tribunal assessed his income at Rs. 10,000/- per month,
which is on the higher side and needs to be reduced. Hence,
the amount of compensation needs to be suitably reduced.
7. I have heard both the parties and considered their rival
submissions made herein-above and went through the
record with utmost circumspection.
8. On 21.07.2018, vehicle bearing registration No. CG 04 JA
1450 was driven by deceased/driver Vedram and vehicle
bearing registration No. CG 19 BG 3736 was driven by
deceased/driver Bhavesh. The claim petition was filed in
respect of Vedram. The New India Assurance Company
Limited was the insurer of offending vehicle i.e. truck
bearing registration No. CG 19 BG 3736. There was a head-
on collision between the vehicles. FIRs were registered by
both parties. Neither party examined any eyewitness. Since
the drivers of both vehicles died, the police submitted a
closure report. In paragraph 20 of its award, the learned
Tribunal found rash and negligent driving on the part of

5
both drivers and therefore recorded a finding of contributory
negligence, which in the considered opinion of this Court is
just and proper and requires no interference.
9. It is undisputed that deceased Vedram was a driver. Hence,
he falls under the category of skilled individual. It is
pertinent to note that on the date of the accident i.e.
21.07.2018, as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages
Notification issued by the Office of the Labour
Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, the monthly income of a
skilled person was Rs. 9,530/-. The Claims Tribunal has
assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 10,000/-, which
cannot be said to be on the higher side. Hence, the
contention of learned counsel for the Insurance Company is
not sustainable on this point.
10. The next contention of learned Counsel for the Claimants is
that the Claims Tribunal has awarded lesser amount under
other conventional heads. It is true that the Claims
Tribunal has awarded only Rs.77,000/- under other
conventional heads which ought to be Rs.1,10,000/- as per
1
National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi , to
that extent the impugned award needs to be modified.
11. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the
judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of
Pranay Sethi (Supra), Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi
2
Transport Corporation & Ors and Magma General
3
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors ,
this Court is computing the compensation as below:-
1 (2017) 16 SCC 680
2 (2009) 6 SCC 121
3 (2018) 18 SCC 130

6
Sr.
Heads Compensation
Compensation
No.
awarded by the
awarded by this
Tribunal
Court
1 Income Rs. 10000 x 12 =
Rs. 10000 x 12 =
1,20,000/-
1,20,000/-
2. Future
(+)40% (i.e. Rs.
(+)40% (i.e. Rs.
prospect
48,000) =
48,000) =
1,68,000/-
1,68,000/-
3. Deduction (-) 1/2 (i.e.
(-) 1/2 (i.e. 84000)
84000) =
= 84,000/-
84,000/-
4. Multiplier (x) 18 =
(x) 18 =
15,12,000/-
15,12,000/-
5 Other
Rs. 77,000/- Rs. 1,10,000/-
conventional
(15000+15000+800
heads
00)
Total Rs. 15,89,000/- Rs. 16,22,000/-
Rs. 7,94,500/- Rs. 8,11,000/-
6 Deduction
towards
Contributory
Negligence
(1/2)
12. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of
compensation of Rs.7,94,500/- awarded by the Claims
Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.8,11,000/-. Hence, after
deducting the amount of Rs.7,94,500/-, the claimants are
held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.16,500/-. The
additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @
6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case
before the Claims Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the
conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

7
13. In the result, the appeal filed by the claimants is partly
and the appeal filed by the insurance company is
allowed
dismissed and the impugned award is modified to the
extent as indicated herein-above.
14. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in
writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against
the award made by the concerned Tribunal. The said
communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and
the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co-
ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area
wherein the claimants resides.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
-Shubham