1 2025:CGHC:46559 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 78 of 2023 1 - Smt. Prabha Chandrakar, W/o. Late Tikeshwar Chandrakar, Aged About 24 Years, R/o. Village Baldakachhar, Post Arjuni, P.S. Kasdol, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh. 2 – Gunmun, D/o. Late Tikeshwar Chandrakar, Aged About 4 Years, Minor Represented Through Mother Smt. Prabha Chandrakar, R/o. Village Baldakachhar, Post Arjuni, P.S. Kasdol, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Basanti, W/o. Neelkanth Chandrakar, Aged About 53 Years, R/o. Village Baldakachhar, Post Arjuni, P.S. Kasdol, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Neelkanth, S/o. Late Gajju Chandrakar, Aged About 55 Years, R/o. Village Baldakachhar, Post Arjuni, P.S. Kasdol, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - M/s Satguru Auto Mobiles, C/o. Chandrashekhar, S/o. Tulsiram Sahu, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Main Road, Tumgaon, ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.09.12 17:17:42 +0530 2 Mahasamund, Police Station Tumgaon, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh (Vehicle Owner) 2 - Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited, Through The Branch Manager, Branch Office First Floor, Galaxy Height, Vyapar Vihar, Beside Sanjay Apartment, Tarbahar, Balaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Vipin Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 11.09.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been preferred by the appellants/claimants calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 04.11.2022 passed by learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No.332/2021, whereby the claim application of the claimants has been partly allowed and deceased Tikeshwar Chandrakar has also been held negligent to the extent of 50% and therefore, while deducting an amount of Rs. 9,03,186/- for loss of dependency towards 3 contributory negligence, Rs. 10,93,168/- has been awarded as total compensation to the claimants. 2. Mr. Vipin Singh, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, would submit that though the plea of contributory negligence has been taken in para 15 of the written statement, but only one Law Officer Aamin Khan has been examined whereas the eye- witness Jitendra Das Manikpuri who was sitting as pillion rider in the motorcycle on which the deceased was also sitting has been examined and he has clearly stated that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of other motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.06-GS-4286 who dashed the stationary motorcycle of Tikeshwar Chandrakar by which he fell down and died. As such, the plea of contributory negligence has not been established and the Claims Tribunal has erred in law by deducting 50% of the award amount towards contributory negligence. 3. Mr. Saurabh Gupta, learned counsel for the insurance company/ respondent No.2 would support the impugned judgment and submit that the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal with regard to contributory negligence of the deceased is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record, 4 which do not call for any interference and the appeal of the claimants deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records minutely. 5. Though a specific plea of contributory negligence has been taken in para 15 of the written statement that the deceased Tikeshwar Chandrakar was also negligent in driving the motorcycle, as the accident occurred in the middle of the road; however, in order to establish the plea of contributory negligence, one Law Officer Aamin Khan has been examined on behalf of the insurance company and he has only relied upon the police document to demonstrate that the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. has also been registered against deceased Tikeshwar Chandrakar but, on account of his death, it was closed and he did not say that the deceased was also negligent in driving the motorcycle. Apart from that, the eye-witness Jitendra Das Manikpuri (AW-2), who was sitting in the motorcycle as pillion rider with deceased Tikeshwar Chandrakar has also been examined and in the examination-in-chief, he has supported the case of the claimants that the driver of the other motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.06-GS-4286 was driving 5 the vehicle rashly and negligently. In the cross examination, he has refuted the fact that though he had said that there was collision of two vehicles, however, he has stated that he and deceased Tikeshwar was sitting in stationary vehicle. He has also refuted the fact that deceased was driving the vehicle in the middle of the road and further refuted the fact that the accident occurred on account of rash & negligent driving of deceased Tikeshwar Chandrakar. As such, in our considered opinion, the rash & negligent act of deceased Tikeshwar Chandrakar has not been proved by the insurance company, as the eye-witness Jitendra Das Manikpuri (AW-2) has not supported the case of the insurance company. 6. In that view of the matter, the finding with regard to contributory negligence is not established and accordingly, the impugned award deducting 50% of the awarded amount i.e. Rs.9,03,186/- is hereby set aside and it is held that the claimants are also entitled for additional amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,03,186/-, which has been deducted towards contributory negligence of the deceased. 7. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the additional amount of compensation within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of 6 compensation shall carry interest @ 9% 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. 8. 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 Ashok