Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs Madiram Majji @ Madi

¶1

PRASHANT DEWANGAN

¶2

Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2026.09.22 11:44:11 +0530

CGHC010182882023

2026:CGHC:40856

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

MAC No. 883 of 2023

¶8

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through - Its Legal Manager, 4th Floor Maruti Heights, Beside Sky Auto Maruti Dealer, Mahoba Bazar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Pin 492010 (C.G.)

¶9

... Appellant

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Madiram Majji @ Madi, S/o Late Desa Majji, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Village Tumirgunda Patelpara Bedar, District Bijapur (C.G.) Presently R/o Village Kutru Maidanpara, District Bijapur (C.G.)

¶12

2 - Ku. Tulsi Majji, D/o Madiram Majji @ Madi, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Village Tumirgunda Patelpara Bedar, District Bijapur (C.G.) Presently R/o Village Kutru Maidanpara, District Bijapur (C.G.)

¶13

3 - Bhupendra Majji, S/o Madiram Majji @ Madi, Aged About 16 Years, Respondent No. 3 Being Minor Represented Through Natural Guardian Father Madiram Majji (Respondent No. 1), R/o Village Tumirgunda Patelpara Bedar, District Bijapur (C.G.) Presently R/o Village Kutru Maidanpara, District Bijapur (C.G.)

¶14

4 - Ku. Sumitra Majji, D/o Madiram Majji @ Madi, Aged About 15 Years, Respondent No. 4 Being Minor Represented Through Natural Guardian Father Madiram Majji (Respondent No. 1), R/o Village Tumirgunda Patelpara Bedar, District Bijapur (C.G.) Presently R/o Village Kutru Maidanpara, District Bijapur (C.G.)

¶15

5 - Manoj Kumar Majji, S/o Madiram Majji @ Madi, Aged About 13 Years, Respondent No. 5 Being Minor Represented Through Natural Guardian Father Madiram Majji (Respondent No. 1), R/o Village Tumirgunda Patelpara Bedar, District Bijapur (C.G.) Presently R/o

¶16

Village Kutru Maidanpara, District Bijapur (C.G.)

¶17

6 - Manjeet Thakur, S/o Kamdev Thakur, Aged About 39 Years, Caste - Bramhan, R/o Guru Govind Singh Ward No. 47, Geedam Naka, Geedam Road, Jagdalpur, District : Bastar (C.G.)

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

For Appellant	: Ms. Harneet	Kaur Khanuja, Advocate
	appears on	behalf of Mr. Sourabh
	Sharma, Advo	cate
For Respondents No.1 to 5	: Mr. Pravin Ku	mar Tulsyan, Advocate
For Respondent No.6	: None

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board

¶21

(18/09/2026)

¶22

1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Act, 1988 has been preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the impugned award dated 10/03/2023, passed in Claim Case No.13/2020, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal dismissed the plea of Insurance Company with regard to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and fastened the liability upon Insurance Company to satisfy the award amount first.

¶23

2. Ms. Harneet Kaur Khanuja, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in not attributing any contributory negligence to the deceased, despite the material on record indicating that, the accident occurred due to a head-on collision between the Honda motorcycle driven by the deceased and the offending truck. The deceased was driving the motorcycle in rash and negligent manner and had failed to observe the requisite safety measures at the time of the accident, thereby contributing to the

¶24

occurrence of the accident and, therefore, an appropriate percentage of contributory negligence ought to have been attributed to him while determining the compensation payable to the claimants. Learned counsel further submitted that while computing the compensation, the learned Tribunal has erred in not making the requisite deduction towards income tax from the income of the deceased being the Govt employee.

¶25

3. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that learned Tribunal has erred in making a deduction of only one-fourth (1/4th) towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased. The deceased was an unmarried person. Therefore, having regard to the settled principles governing assessment of loss of dependency, one-half (1/2) of the income of the deceased ought to have been deducted towards his personal and living expenses. It is further submitted that the father of the deceased, namely Madiram, in his deposition, has categorically admitted that he owns approximately 5 acres of agricultural land and that the deceased used to give him only about 5,000/- to 6,000/- ₹ ₹ per month for meeting the household expenses. The said admission clearly demonstrates that the father had an independent source of livelihood and was not wholly dependent upon the income of the deceased. It was also submitted that Madiram has two sons and two daughters, who are also claimants in the present proceedings, and they are capable of earning their livelihood and generating income in due course. Therefore, the alleged dependency of all the claimants upon the

¶26

deceased cannot be presumed to be absolute or permanent, therefore, the compensation awarded under the head of loss of dependency consequently deserves to be suitably reduced.

¶27

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 opposing the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that to establish contributory negligence, the driver/owner of the offending vehicle was not examined. Learned counsel further submits that a charge-sheet has been filed against the driver-owner of the offending truck. The rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle was proved by the eye-witness Ramesh Diwan, who remained consistent in his statement. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error of law with respect to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. It has been further submitted by learned counsel that, in the calculation of compensation, 10% enhancement towards funeral expenses has not been added as per the principle laid down in the matter of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Since the accident occurred on 04.11.2020, the said enhancement is required to be considered. Learned counsel referring para 5 of the decision of this Court in the matter of Mongara Bai Ghritlahre & Anr. Vs. Suraj Banjare

¶28

& Ors . (MAC No.1420/2023 decided on 02.09.2026) submitted that, where the claimants are the minor siblings and aged father of an unmarried deceased, deduction towards personal and living expenses ought to be 1/3rd instead of 1/2.

¶29

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶30

6. So far as the question of contributory negligence is concerned, the claimants have examined Ramesh Diwan (AW-3), eye witness to the incident, who has specifically attributed rash and negligent driving to the driver of the offending vehicle, namely, Manjeet Thakur. The statement of the eye witness is corroborated by the charge-sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. It is significant to note that, in rebuttal of the testimony of the said eye-witness, neither the driver/owner of the offending vehicle, nor any other witness, has been examined by the Insurance Company. In the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence to establish that the deceased had also contributed to the occurrence of the accident, the plea of contributory negligence raised by the Insurance Company cannot be accepted. Accordingly, this Court finds no infirmity in the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal in declining to attribute any contributory negligence to the deceased. The said finding, therefore, warrants no interference and is hereby affirmed.

¶31

7. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that deceased Ramesh Kumar was unmarried aged about 24 years was Government employee holding the post of Constable at 22nd Battalion and used to draw salary of Rs.30,395/- per month. The said income

¶32

is duly established from the salary slips (Ex. A-23). Accordingly, the finding of the learned Tribunal assessing the monthly income at Rs.30,395/- is just and proper.

¶33

8. The learned claims Tribunal, considering the age of the deceased 24 at the time of accident 04.11.2020 and nature of job and number of dependents (05), has rightly taken future prospect of 50% and applied the multiplier of 18.

¶34

9. As regards the deduction towards personal and living expenses, the Tribunal has made a deduction of 1/4th. However, the deceased was unmarried and left behind his father, aged about 60 years, and four siblings, namely, two sisters aged about 19 and 15 years and two brothers aged about 16 and 13 years, respectively. In this regard, the father of the deceased, Madiram, has admitted in his deposition before the Tribunal that he owns about 5 acres of agricultural land and that the deceased used to contribute only an amount of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month towards household expenses. It is also evident that the other claimants are capable of earning in the future and would eventually become financially independent. The case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 5 in the matter of Mongara Bai Ghritlahre (Supra), being distinguishable on the ground of facts would be of no help, therefore, the deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased is required to be made at the rate of 1/2 instead of 1/4th. Accordingly, the deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased is modified from

¶35

1/4th to 1/2.

¶36

10. So far as the amount awarded under the conventional heads is concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- (44,000x5) towards consortium, which is found just and proper, however, the amount of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal towards loss of estate & funeral expenses, which in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not found just and proper and required to be modified suitably.

¶37

11. Thus, taking monthly income of the deceased as Rs.30,395/-, the annual income comes to Rs.3,64,740/-. The deceased was salaried person so considering the age of the deceased i.e. 24 years, as per Pranay Sethi (supra), the future prospects would be 50%. After adding 50% future prospects i.e. Rs.1,82,370/- the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.5,47,110/-.

¶38

12. From the annual income of the deceased, there will be statutory deduction towards income tax. The date of accident in the instant case is 04.11.2020, so, the income tax slab for the financial year 2020-2021 (Assessment Year 2021-22) was as follows:

¶39

Income Tax Slabs in the FY 2020-21 (Assessment Year 2021-22)	Income Tax Rates	Taxable Income	Total Tax
Upto 2.5 lakh	Nil	Rs. 2,50,000/-	Nil
2,50,001 to 5,00,000/-	5%	Rs. 2,50,000/-	Rs. 12,500.00
5,00,001 to 10,00,000	20%	Rs.47,110/-	Rs.9,422.00
Above 10,00,000	30%	--	--
		Total Tax	Rs.21,922.00

¶40

13. In view of the same, after deduction of income tax, the annual

¶41

income comes to Rs.5,25,188/- (5,47,110/- – 21,922/-).

¶42

14. Accordingly, 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 Transport Corporation & Ors and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.

¶43

Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors , this Court is computing the

¶44

compensation as below:-

¶45

Sr.	Heads	Compensation awarded by
No.		this Court
1	Income	Rs. 30,395 x 12 = 3,64,740/-
2.	Future prospect	(+)50% (i.e. Rs. 1,82,370/-) = 5,47,110/-
	Tax deduction	Rs. 5,47,110 – Tax 21,922 = Rs.5,25,188/-
3.	Deduction towards personal expenses	(-) 1/2nd (i.e. /-) = 2,62,594/-
4.	Multiplier	(x) 18 = 47,26,692/-
5	Towards consortium to 5 claimants	Rs. 2,20,000/- [44,000 x 5]
6.	Towards Loss of Estate	Rs.16,500/-
7.	Towards Funeral Expenses	Rs.16,500/-
	Total	Rs. 49,79,692/-

¶46

15. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.76,35,985/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is reduced to Rs.49,79,692/-. The claimants shall be entitled to the modified amount of compensation and rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶47

16. In the result, the aforesaid appeals are partly allowed and the

¶48

impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated hereinabove.

¶49

17. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the modified 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.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)

¶52

Judge

¶53

Prashant

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited v. Madiram Majji @ Madi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited v. Madiram Majji @ Madi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases