RIKHU KUJUR v. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
MAC/730/2022 · 2025-09-07
Shri Sanjay K Agrawal
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 24449 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 24449 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.1 of 5 IN MAC-730-2022
2025:CGHC:45705
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 730 of 2022 [Arising out of award dt. 31.03.2022, passed in Claim Case No.60 of 2020 (Rikhu Kujur and another vs. Divisional Manager and another) by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surguja (Ambikapur)] 1 - Rikhu Kujur S/o Devcharan Kujur Aged About 47 Years Occupation Agriculturist (Father Of Deceased) R/o Gram Gagoli, Gahtiyapara, Post Patora, P.S. And Tehsil Lundra, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Fuleshwari W/o Rikhu Kujur Aged About 45 Years Occupation House Wife, (Mother Of Deceased) R/o Gram Gagoli, Gahtiyapara, Post Patora, P.S. And Tehsil Lundra, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
... Appellants/ Claimants Versus 1 - Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Division Office Near Ambedkar Chowk, Post Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Jugeshwar Ram S/o Sobhran Ram Aged About 48 Years Occupation Service, R/o Gram Suarpara, Batauli, P.S. And Tehsil Batauli, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. UNS Deo, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : None though served. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN
Page No.2 of 5 IN MAC-730-2022 08.09.2025
1. This appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants/Claimants challenging the impugned award dt. 31.03.2022, passed in Claim Case No.60 of 2020 (Rikhu Kujur and another vs. Divisional Manager and another) by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surguja (Ambikapur) (CG) [for short the “Claims Tribunal”], whereby though the learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the claim application of the appellants/claimant and awarded total compensation of Rs.6,65,040/- to them on account of death of their son- Kishnu Kujur, but erred in deducting 30% amount on the ground of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, which is sought to be challenged by way of this appeal.
2.
Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in law while deducting 30% amount on the ground that the deceased was himself negligent in the accident in question for the reason that neither the plea of contributory negligence has been raised by the respondent-Insurance Company nor the same has been proved by leading evidence before the learned Claims Tribunal and, therefore, in light of the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Seema Pandey and others
1 , the impugned award to the 1 2014 (1) CGLJ 270
Page No.3 of 5 IN MAC-730-2022 extent of deducting 30% amount on the ground of contributory negligence is liable to be set aside. Apart from it, the learned Claims Tribunal has also erred in not awarding any amount towards loss of parental consortium to the appellants herein, for which, they are entitled to i.e. Rs.40,000/- x 2 = Rs.80,000/-. Hence, the present appellant be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned award and prays for dismissal of this appeal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. True it is that in the present case the learned Claims Tribunal has deducted 30% amount on the ground of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased (son of the appellants/claimants), however, a careful perusal of the written statement filed by the respondent- Insurance Company before the learned Claims Tribunal would show that in Para-18 it is only stated that in the accident in question the driver of the vehicle (Motor-cycle) bearing No.CG-16- CD-2340 (i.e. the vehicle which was driven by the deceased) drove the same rash and negligently, but no evidence to that effect has been led by the insurance company. Even otherwise, the officer, who has been examined on behalf of the insurance company, namely, Anup Mehta (Witness No.1) has only stated that on account of
Page No.4 of 5 IN MAC-730-2022 collision of two motor-cycles the accident in question occurred. As such, the plea of contributory negligence has neither been raised nor proved by the insurance company before the learned Claims Tribunal.
Therefore, in light of Smt. Seema Pandey (supra) the learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in deducting 30% amount (i.e. Rs.2,72,160/-) on the ground of contributory negligence. Furthermore, no amount towards loss of parental consortium to the appellants herein has been awarded by the learned tribunal, for which, they are entitled to i.e. Rs.40,000/- x 2 = Rs.80,000/-. 6. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.6,65,040/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.10,17,200/- [i.e. Rs.6,65,040/- (amount awarded by the tribunal) + Rs.2,72,160/- (30% deducted by the tribunal on account of contributory negligence) + Rs.80,000 (for loss of
parental consortium
to the appellants)]. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.6,65,040/-, the appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.3,52,160/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this
order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.
Page No.5 of 5 IN MAC-730-2022
7. 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 s@if