1 (MAC No. 399 of 2022) 2025:CGHC:36645 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 399 of 2022 1 - Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited Through Manager, Raj Chambers Office No. 306 3rd Floor, Near Mova Over Bridge Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Manu Singh Wd/o Late Ravindra Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Pwd 5, Police Line, Ward No. -48, Sector -6, Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil And District Drug Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ashwini Pratap Singh S/o Late Ravindra Singh Aged About 11 Years Minor Through, Present Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Manu Singh Wd/o Late Ravindra Singh. R/o Pwd 5, Police Line, Ward No. -48, Sector -6, Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - Kumari Bhavya Singh D/o Late Ravindra Singh, Aged About 8 Years Minor Through, Present Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Manu Singh Wd/o Late Ravindra Singh. R/o Pwd 5, Police Line, Ward No. -48, Sector -6, Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Chandmuni Devi Wd/o Late Tejnarayan Singh Aged About 68 Years R/o Pwd 5, Police Line, Ward No. 48, Sector-6 Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 5 - Laxman Yadav S/o Siri Yadav R/o Village Revariya, Post Chouka, P.S. Badagaon Dullapur, District Gajipur (U.P.) ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.07.30 17:12:22 +0530 2 (MAC No. 399 of 2022) 6 - Praveen Shinde, S/o Mohan, R/o A/p, Gate No.-225 Nunkherwadi, Chakhantal Khadi, District Pune (Maharastra) --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Appellant :- Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate For Respondent Nos.1 to 4 :- Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.5 :- Mr. Aditya Kumar Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 28.07 .2025 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of award dated 29.10.2021 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, by which compensation amount of Rs. 45,28,906/- along with interest has been granted to the claimants. 2. The sole ground raised on behalf of the appellant is that the deceased was driving negligently and dashed into the offending vehicle stationed idle on the service road and, therefore, 50% of compensation awarded to the claimants be deducted on account of contributory negligence. 3 (MAC No. 399 of 2022) 3. Learned counsel for the claimants would support the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal and submit that the plea of contributory negligence has not been specifically raised by the appellant/insurance company and no evidence has been led in this regard, as such, the Claims Tribunal has rightly held that the deceased has not committed contributory negligence and, therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. So far as the plea of the insurance company regarding contributory negligence is concerned it has simply been stated by the appellant/insurance company that the deceased was not vigilant while driving as he dashed into the stationary vehicle which was parked on the service road. As such, no specific plea of contributory negligence has been made except stating that the deceased had dashed into a stationary vehicle, moreover, no evidence has been led in this regard to prove that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly held that the plea of contributory negligence has not been specifically raised by the appellant/insurance company 4 (MAC No. 399 of 2022) and no evidence has been led to prove the same. Thus, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned award. 6. In that view of the matter, the instant appeal deserves to be and is accordingly, dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!