1 2025:CGHC:46259 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1695 of 2019 1 - Sushant Pal S/o Lt. Vimal Pal Aged About 32 Years Permanent R/o Village And Post Office - Damodarpur, Police Station - Ramanujganj District - Sarguja Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Bazarpara Beergaon Police Station - Khamtarai, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Mukesh Lakada R/o Village - Mado, Police Station - Aasta District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Abhisek Singh S/o Dinesh Singh, R/o House No. 19 / 5, Ward No. 19, Bhouripara, Ring Road Ambikapur District - Sarguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - S.B. I. General Insurance Co. Ltd., Through - In Charge Officer S. B. I. General Insurance Co. Ltd. Pujari Park, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Shristhi Upadhyay, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 10/09/2025 Heard on IA No. 01 – application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. With the consent of the parties, heard finally. 4. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) has been filed challenging the award dated 16.11.2018 2 passed in Claim Case No. 437/2016 by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur, CG by which against a claim of Rs. 34,76,000/-, the learned Tribunal has assessed the compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- however, deducted 50% of amount on account of contributing negligence. 5. As per pleadings of the claim application filed under Section 166 of MV Act, that on 22.08.2015 the offending vehicle Highwa Truck bearing registration No. CG 15 AC 3527 was parked in main road village Mafouli negligently without parking light or indicator in the middle of the main road, resulting into dashing of the Bolero bearing registration No. CG 15 CV 3017 to the offending vehicle as a result, the appellant/claimant was sitting in the bolero sustained severe injuries. 6. Further pleadings reflect that at the time of accident the appellant/claimant was 32 year of age and he was a mason and earning Rs. 9,000/- per month and he became permanently disabled and therefore, the above stated compensation was claimed. 7. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 / driver and owner remained ex-parte before the learned Tribunal. The respondent No. 3 / insurance company filed its written statement and denied the averments of the claim application and pleaded that there is no negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and the driver of the bolero vehicle was responsible for causing the accident. Apart from this, the insurance company took a plea of violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the ground of valid and effective driving license, permit and fitness. 8. The learned Claims Tribunal framed six issues and decided the same and assess the compensation as stated above, however, awarded only Rs. 1,25,000/- deducting 50% on the ground of contributing negligence of the driver of the bolero. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant / claimant vehemently argued that 3 the income of the appellant / claimant taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Though no disability certificate was filed and neither doctor was examined, however, he support of grievous injuries on his head and therefore, the amount of compensation ought to have been enhanced. Apart from this, he submits that the finding of issue No. 1 & 5 with regard to contributing negligence deserves to be set aside as the appellant/claimant was not either of the vehicles. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of T.O. Anthony Vs. Karvanan and ors.; (2008) 3 SCC 748. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 supports the award and submits that the offending vehicle was stationary and there was no negligence on the driver of the offending vehicle rather the driver of the bolero vehicle was found 50% negligent which does not require any interference by this Court, just compensation has been awarded and no enhancement is required to be made. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record. 12. The first contention is with regard to the deduction of 50% amount from the assessed compensation requires to be set aside. Admittedly, in the case in hand, the appellant/claimant was sitting in the bolero and he was not the driver of the bolero or the tractor. The Tribunal though stated that driver of the bolero was also contributed to the accident but infact misread itself to be a case of contributing negligence rather a case of composite negligence. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of T.O. Anthony (supra). 13. In light of above, the findings is with regard to deduction of 50% amount on account of contributing negligence in issue Nos. 1 & 5 is hereby set aside. 14. The next contention is with regard to as to what would be just 4 compensation to be awarded to the appellant. Admittedly, no disability certificate was placed on record nor any doctor was examined. The Tribunal on assessment of the evidence available on record in paragraph 24 awarded the compensation in the following manner:- Loss of income during the treatment Rs. 36,000/-; Medical treatment Rs. 1,46,472/-; Mental and physical agony Rs. 20,000/-; Transportation Rs. 20,000/-; Nutritional Diet Rs. 25,000/- and attendant Rs. 16,800/-, hence total awarded compensation of Rs. 2,49,272/- round figure Rs. 2,50,000/- 15. From the evidence on record it appears that the appellant remained hospitalization for considerable period sustained grievous injuries, therefore, taking into consideration all relevant factors, this Court is inclined to award compensation of Rs. 25,000/- in addition to the amount of award assessed by the learned Tribunal, therefore, respondent No. 3 / insurance company shall be liable to pay the entire amount of compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- assessed by the learned Tribunal and Rs. 25,000/- as enhanced by this Court with 6% interest from the date of claim application. If any award is deposited, the same shall adjusted. 60 days time is granted to the respondent No. 3 / insurance company to deposit the award and after deposit the award the Tribunal shall pass appropriate order with regard to investment and disbursement. 16. Appeal thus allowed in part. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan