LAXMUNIYA UIKA vs MUKESH KUMAR JAISWAL

1

CGHC010136332023 2026:CGHC:45340
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 722 of 2023
1 - Laxmuniya Uika W/o Late Suresh Uika Aged About 28 Years
Occupation Housewife, R/o Village Sahadanpara, Digma P.S. Gandhinagar,
Tahsil Ambikapur Dist. Surguja (C.G.).
2 - Vijay S/o Late Suresh Uika Aged About 10 Years Through Natural
Guardian Mother Appellant No. 1, R/o Village Sahadanpara, Digma P.S.
Gandhinagar, Tahsil Ambikapur Dist. Surguja (C.G.).
3 - Arvind S/o Late Suresh Uika Aged About 8 Years Through Natural
Guardian Mother Appellant No. 1, R/o Village Sahadanpara, Digma P.S.
Gandhinagar, Tahsil Ambikapur Dist. Surguja (C.G.).
4 - Anchal Uika D/o Late Suresh Uika Aged About 5 Years Through Natural
Guardian Mother Appellant No. 1, R/o Village Sahadanpara, Digma P.S.
Gandhinagar, Tahsil Ambikapur Dist. Surguja (C.G.).
5 - Kailaso W/o Pawan Aged About 49 Years Occupation Housewife, R/o
Village Sahadanpara, Digma P.S. Gandhinagar, Tahsil Ambikapur Dist.
Surguja (C.G.).
6 - Pawan S/o Late Panmeshwar Aged About 52 Years R/o Village
Sahadanpara, Digma P.S. Gandhinagar, Tahsil Ambikapur Dist. Surguja
(C.G.) ... Appellants
versus
1 - Mukesh Kumar Jaiswal S/o Pramod Jaiswal Aged About 35 Years R/o
Dhandhapur P.S. Rajpur Dist. Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) (Driver).
2 - Jagsai S/o Shambhu Singh Aged About 24 Years Village Dhandhapur
P.S. Rajpur Dist. Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) (Vehicle Owner).
3 - Branch Manager Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited,
Branch Office 04 Floor Gawlani Chamber Office No. 08 Vyapar Vihar, Main

2
Road, Near I.C.I.C.I. Bank Vyapar Vihar Bilaspur Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.)
(Insurance Company) ... Respondents
For the appellants : Mr. Dev Ashish Biswas, Advocate
For respondent no.3 : Ms. Harneet Kaur Khanuja, Advocate
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Order on Board
27.10.2026
1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short
“MV Act”) has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation, challenging
the impugned award dated 13.10.2022 passed by the learned Additional
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Ambikapur in Claim Case No. 24/2022
whereby a total compensation of Rs.10,57,840/-/- has been awarded.
2 . As per the facts pleaded in claim application filed under Section 166
of the MV Act, deceased Suresh Uika sustained grievous injuries in a
motor accident took place on 14.08.2021 due to rash and negligent driving
of respondent no.1 who drove the offending Motorcycle No. C.G.
30-B/0518. The injured was admitted in Ambikapur hospital where he
succumbed to injuries on 16.08.2021 during treatment. Appellant No.1 is
the widow ; appellants 2, 3 & 4 are minor children and appellants 5 & 6 are
parents of the deceased. They being legal heirs have filed claim application
u/s 166 of the M.V. Act, seeking a total compensation of Rs. 46,57,000/-
on different heads.
3(i). Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the income taken by
the Tribunal is on lower side and the amounts granted under the other
conventional heads are also meagre, thereby, just compensation has not
been awarded. He prays that the compensation awarded by the Claims
Tribunal may suitably be enhanced.

3
3(ii) He further argues that the Tribunal’s finding—attributing 30%
contributory negligence to the deceased, who was the rider of the
motorcycle is erroneous. There is no evidence on record to suggest any
negligence on the part of the deceased. In these circumstances, it would not
be appropriate to hold that the deceased is liable for contributory
negligence; therefore, this finding should be set aside, and the
driver/owner, and insurer of the offending vehicle should be held entirely
liable.
4. Learned counsel for respondent no.3/Insurer of the offending vehicle
supports the impugned award and contends that the incident involved a
head-on collision between two motorcycles. The accident occurred at
approximately 5:30 PM. In these circumstances, the Tribunal’s finding
that the deceased was 30% contributorily negligent is consistent with the
evidence on record and is appropriate. Therefore, the argument put forth by
the appellant is not tenable.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection.
6. In this case, Vijay Prakash was examined as an eyewitness on
behalf of the claimants, whereas no evidence was presented by the
driver, owner, or insurer of the offending vehicle. It is noteworthy that
Vijay Prakash was a pillion rider on the offending vehicle,
accompanied by its driver, Mukesh (respondent no.1). In his
testimony before the court, Vijay Prakash has clearly stated that the
offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 at a high speed
and in a negligent manner, which resulted in the accident. His
testimony remained unrebutted during cross-examination and in
paragraph 7 of his cross-examination, he has specifically clarified
that the offending vehicle was traveling in the wrong direction, that

4
is, on the right side of the road. There is no evidence on record to
contradict this statement by Vijay Prakash. Furthermore, it is
significant to note that following a police investigation, a charge sheet
(Exhibit P-1) was filed against the driver, Mukesh, in which Vijay
Prakash is listed as a witness. Under these circumstances, there is no
reason to disbelieve the testimony of Vijay Prakash, especially since
his version is corroborated by the final police report. Consequently, it
is concluded that the accident was caused solely by rash and
negligent driving of respondent no.1 Mukesh. The driver, owner, and
insurer of the offending vehicle failed to prove that there was any
contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Therefore, the
finding of contributory negligence reached by the Tribunal is
erroneous and is hereby set aside .
7. As regards the income of deceased, the claimants pleaded that the
deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month by doing the job of Head-
Mason. However, the Tribunal took the income of deceased as Rs.7000/-
per month, which seems to be on lower side. In absence of any cogent
reliable evidence regarding the income of deceased and looking to the
prevalent market rates, it would be appropriate to take his monthly income
to be Rs.9,200/-treating him as unskilled labour as per the the
Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages applicable at the time of accident occurred
on 14.08.2021.
8. Since the age of deceased was found to be 32 years and there are 6
claimants, following the case-law laid down by Supreme Court, the
Tribunal has rightly added 40% future prospectus, deducted 1/4th
towards personal expenses and applied multiplier 16 which cannot be said
to be unsustainable.
9. Under the other conventional heads, the Tribunal has granted

5
Rs.15000/- for loss of estate and Rs.15000/- which seems to be slightly
lesser in view of principle of 10% automatic enhancement.
10. As regards consortium, it appears that a sum of Rs.40,000/- has
been awarded to the wife whereas the minor children and parents have
been completely ignored which cannot be allowed to sustain. Under Motor
Accident Claims, the Supreme Court has established that every individual
dependent-claimant is entitled to a separate compensation for the loss of
consortium or love and affection. There are six claimants in this case.
Thus, following the principle of 10% automatic enhancement, each
claimant is entitled to Rs.44,000/- separately and the total comes to
Rs.2,64,000/- under this specific head.
11. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and in view of the decisions of
the Supreme Court rendered in National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus
Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 ; Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Versus Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130 , this Court is
computing the compensation as below :
Sl.No . Heads Compensation
awarded by the
Tribunal
Compensation
awarded by this
Court
1. Total loss of
dependency
Rs . 14,11,200/-
-----------------------
after deducting
30% contributory
negligence i.e.,
4,23,360/- = loss
of dependency was
worked to Rs.
9,87,840/-

Rs. 9200 X 12 =
1,10,400/- plus
Future Prospectus-
40% i.e., 44,160/- =
1,54,560 minus
1/4th deduction of
personal expenses
i.e., 38,640/- =
1,15,920/- x 16
multiplier =
18,54,720/-
2. Loss of estate 15,000/- 16,500/-
3. Funeral expenses 15,000/- 16,500/-

6
4. Loss of consortium (40000 x 1)
(44,000 x 6
claimants)
2,64,000/-
40,000/-

Total Rs. 10,57,840/- 21,51,720/-
12. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.
10,57,840/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.
21,51,720/- Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs 10,57,840/- the
appellants are held entitled for an additional sum of Rs. 10,93,880/-. The
additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum
from the date of filing claim application before the Tribunal till its
realization. The respondents are liable to pay the entire amount of award.
Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.
13 . In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award
is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.
Sd/-
Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judge
Rao
Digitally
signed by
ALLENA
ANNAJEE
RAO
Date:
2026.10.29
14:06:48
+0530
ALLENA
ANNAJEE
RAO