1 2025:CGHC:48769 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 615 of 2024 1 - Smt. Lalita Nishad Wd/o Late - Mahadev Nishad, Aged About 25 Years R/o. Village- Magarghata, Thana- Nandghat, Tahsil- Nawagarh, Distt- Bemetara (C.G) 2 - Dukal Parkar S/o Shakau Ram Nisad, Aged About 55 Years R/o. Village- Magarghata, Thana- Nandghat, Tahsil- Nawagarh, Distt- Bemetara (C.G) 3 - Bisauni Bai W/o Dukal Nishad Aged About 52 Years R/o. Village- Magarghata, Thana- Nandghat, Tahsil- Nawagarh, Distt- Bemetara (C.G) 4 - Pannalal Nishad S/o Dukal Nishad Aged About 30 Years R/o. Village- Magarghata, Thana- Nandghat, Tahsil- Nawagarh, Distt- Bemetara (C.G) 5 - Ku. Milapa Nishad D/o. Dukal Nishad, Aged About 18 Years R/o. Village- Magarghata, Thana- Nandghat, Tahsil- Nawagarh, Distt- Bemetara (C.G) ... Appellants(s) versus 1 - Baldev Nishad S/o Ramesh Nishad Aged About 68 Years R/o Ward No. 2 Tarpongi, Thana- Nandghat, Tahsil And Distt.- Bemetara (C.G.). 2 - Branch Manager, Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office- 1st Floor 106-7, Welford Ozone, Bilaspur Road, Near Fafadih Chauk, Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Shri Samir Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Shishir Dixit, Advocate. NIRMALA RAO 2 For Respondent No.2 : Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate alongwith Shri Sourabh Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23.09.2025 1. The appellants/ claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 1.9.2023, passed by the learned first Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara in MACT Case No.116 of 2021, wherein the learned Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs.7,52,120/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of Mahadev Nishad. 2. The facts of the present case are that on 13.2.2021, two motorcycles bearing registration Nos. C.G. 22 P 7690 & C.G. 22 T 2657 collided resulting in the deaths of the drivers of both vehicles. The deceased, Mahadev Nishad, was a pillion-rider on the motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G. 22 P 7690. The claimants are wife, parents, brother and sister of the deceased. They filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, interalia, on the ground that at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 24 years and was a Mason earning Rs.15,000/- per month. They claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/-. The owner of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.C.G. 22T 2657 and its Insurance Company filed their reply and denied the allegations. The parties led their evidence and the learned Tribunal framed issues. A specific issue with regard to contributory negligence was framed and decided in affirmative. 3 Learned Tribunal held that the drivers of both the motorcycles were equally responsible for the accident and therefore, deducted 50% of the compensation on account of contributory negligence. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants/ claimants would submit that as the deceased was a pillion-rider on the motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.22P 7690, the learned Tribunal wrongly decided the issue of contributory negligence against the claimants. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has not granted award for loss of consortium to the parents and future prospects. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of T.O. Anthony vs. Karvarnan and Others, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 748. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose. They would submit that the drivers of both the motorcycles were equally responsible. They would contend that the learned Tribunal has rightly decided the issue of contributory negligence in affirmative. They would contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 6. Admittedly, the deceased was a pillion-rider on the motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G.22P 7690. There was a head-on collusion between the two motorcycles, and in said accident the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to death. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of T.O. Anthony (supra) considered the law of composite and contributory negligence. The relevant paras 6 & 7 are reproduced herein below: “6. 'Composite negligence' refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a 4 result of negligence on the part of two or more wrong doers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrong-doers. In such a case, each wrong doer, is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrong-doer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrong-doer separately. On the other hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence of the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stands reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence. 7. Therefore, when two vehicles are involved in an accident, and one of the drivers claims compensation from the other driver alleging negligence, and the other driver denies negligence or claims that the injured claimant himself was negligent, then it becomes necessary to consider whether the injured claimant was negligent and if so, whether he was solely or partly responsible for the accident and the extent of his responsibility, that is his contributory negligence. Therefore where the injured is himself partly liable, the principle of 'composite negligence' will not apply nor can there be an automatic inference that the negligence was 50:50 as has been assumed in this case. The Tribunal ought to have examined the extent of contributory negligence of the appellant and thereby avoided confusion between composite negligence and contributory negligence. The High Court has failed to correct the said error.” 5 8. As the present is a case of composite negligence, the learned Tribunal committed an error while applying the principle of contributory negligence. Therefore, the findings recorded in this regard by the Tribunal are hereby set aside. The claimants would be entitled for compensation without there being any deduction for contributory negligence. The learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for future prospects to the claimants, therefore, award requires modification. 9. Considering the above-stated facts, the compensation is being revisited herein-below: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs. 9,960 x 12 = Rs. 1,19,520/- Rs. 9,960 x 12 = Rs. 1,19,520/- 2. Future Prospect 40% (47,808/-) (1,19,520 + 47,808 = 1,67,328/- 3. Deduction 1/3rd (1,19,520 – 39,840 = 79,680/-) 1/3rd (1,67,328 – 55,776 = 1,11,552/-) 4. Multiplier (x) 18 = Rs. 14,34,240/- (79,680 x 18) (x) 18 = Rs. 20,07,936/- (1,11,552 x 18) 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium (for appellant No. 1) Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 40,000/- TOTAL Rs.15,04,240/- Rs. 20,77,936/- Deduction 50% (as the deceased was a pillion-rider) Rs.7,52,120/- No deduction 6 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the claimants shall be entitled to get total compensation to the tune of Rs.20,77,936/- as the learned Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs.7,52,120/-. Therefore, after deducting the said amount from the total compensation, the appellants/claimants are entitled to an additional amount of Rs.13,25,816/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 11. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi