1 MAC No. 656 of 2023 2025:CGHC:47752 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 656 of 2023 1. Sunita Sahu W/o Late Kuleshwar Sahu, Aged About 23 Years; 2. Naina Sahu D/o Late Kuleshwar Sahu, Aged About 2 Years; 3. Laksh Sahu S/o Late Kuleshwar Sahu, Aged About 2 Months; Appellants No.2 & 3 are minor Through Mother Appellant No. 1 Sunita Sahu. 4. Sant Ram Sahu S/o Awadhram Sahu, Aged About 52 Years; 5. Dulari Sahu W/o Sant Ram Sahu, Aged About 50 Years; All are Resident Of Village Akalwara, Post Devkar, Tahsil and Thana Saja, District – Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants/Claimants versus 1. Sudarshan Singh Rajput S/o Ramkhilawan Singh Rajput, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Village Darri, Thana Thankhamriya, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh. Mo. 7828098883 (Driver Of Durg Roadwej Bus No. CG. 07/E/0740). 2. Nemichand Nahar S/o Late Chunnilal Nahar, Aged About 85 Years, Managing Director, Durg Roadwej Pvt. Durg, ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.09.19 17:27:13 +0530 2 MAC No. 656 of 2023 District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Durg Roadwej Bus No. CG-07-E-0740). 3. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Tara Complex, G.E. Road, Power House Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh Pin-490011 (Insurance Company Of Durg Roadwej Bus No. CG-07-E-0740). ... Respondents For Appellants :- Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 :- Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 17.09.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants questioning the impugned award dated 02.03.2023 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 19/2022 to the extent of holding the contributory negligence committed by deceased Kuleshwar Sahu and also seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation. 2. By the impugned award the Claims Tribunal has computed the compensation to the extent of 3 MAC No. 656 of 2023 ₹15,54,100/-, deducted 50% from the said amount on the ground that the deceased himself has committed contributory negligence as he did not have the valid driving licence to drive the vehicle which is sought to be challenged in the present appeal. 3. Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, would submit that the Claims Tribunal has erred in holding that deceased Kuleshwar Sahu had committed the contributory negligence for want of driving licence in light of decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh and other 1 . He would also submit that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is also liable to be enhanced. 4. Ms. Swati Agrawal, learned counsel for the Insurance Company/respondent No.3, would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellants and support the impugned award. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 1 (2008) 12 SCC 436 4 MAC No. 656 of 2023 6. The Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding at paragraph No.15 of its award that since the deceased’s driving licence was not produced by the appellants/claimants, it is most probable that the deceased must not have the valid driving licence and, therefore, he was guilty of contributory negligence. However, in this regard the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sudhir Kumar Rana (supra) may be noticed herein in which it has been held that driving a vehicle without a licence, is an offence, but the same by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident and observed in para 9 which states as under:- “9. If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was the driver of the mini truck who was driving rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any licence but no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently which contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how, only because he was not having a licence, he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence.” 7. As such, the finding of the Claims Tribunal that the deceased did not have the driving licence to drive the vehicle and therefore, he is guilty of contributory 5 MAC No. 656 of 2023 negligence, runs contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sudhir Kumar Rana (supra). Accordingly, the same is hereby rejected. 8. Since the contributory negligence has not been proved, the deduction 50% from the compensation amount has wrongly been done and even otherwise, future prospect has not been given and under the heads of consortium, funeral expenses and estate, amount is liable to be enhanced. Thus, this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income ₹ 9,700 x 12 = ₹ 1,16,400/- ₹ 9,700 x 12 = ₹ 1,16,400/- 2. Future prospect Nil (+) 40% = ₹ 46,560/- total income = ₹ 1,62,960/- 3. Deduction (-) ¼ = 29,100/- ₹ ₹ 1,16,400 – 29,100= ₹ 87,300/- (total income) (-) ¼ = 40,740/- ₹ ₹1,62,960 – 40,740 = 1,12,220/- (total ₹ income) 4. Multiplier (x) 17 = 14,84,100/- ₹ (x) 17 = 20,77,740/- ₹ 5. Loss of Estate ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 16,500/- 6. Funeral Expenses ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 16,500/- 7. Consortium ₹40,000/- ₹44,000 x 5 = ₹ 2,20,000/- 8. Contributory 50% 50% of total amount i.e. 50% of 15,54,100/- = ₹ Not applicable 6 MAC No. 656 of 2023 7,77,050/- ₹ Total ₹ 7,77,050/- ₹ 23,30,740,/- 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹7,77,050/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹23,30,740,/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹7,77,050/-, the appellants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of ₹15,53,690/- . The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of three 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 i.e. 09.03.2022 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 10. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit