1 2025:CGHC:54874 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 962 of 2022 1 - Thameshwar Deshmukh S/o Ramchandra Deshmukh Aged About 26 Years R/o Adarsh Para, Sanjay Nagar, Supela Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus 1 - Devendra Pratap Singh S/o Ramniwas Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o 42/2, Radhika Nagar Supela Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh, (Driver Of Car No. C.G.-15/d.G.- 2457) 2 - Kamla Malik W/o Vinod Malik Aged About 42 Years R/o House No. 235, Manendragarh Road, Near Ambedkar Chowk, Ambikapur, Tehsil And District Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, (Owner Of Car No. C.G.-15/d.G.-2457) 2 3 - Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Rajendra Park Chowk, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh, (Insurer Of Car No. C.G.-15/d.G.-2457) --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 966 of 2022 1 - Archana Avsare W/o Devendra Avsare Aged About 45 Years R/o Bhim Nagar, Near Deepak Kirana Stores, Supela Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) ---Appellant Versus 1 - Devendra Pratap Singh S/o Ramniwas Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o 42/2, Radhika Nagar Supela Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) (Driver Of Car No. Cg 15 Dg 2457) 2 - Kamla Malik S/o Vinod Malik Aged About 42 Years R/o House No. 325, Manendragarh Road, Near Ambedkar Chowk, Tehsil And District Surguja (C.G.) (Owner Of Car No. Cg 15 Dg 2457) (Wrongly Mention -District Ambikapur) 3 - Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Rajendra Park Chowk, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) (Insurer Of Car No. Cg 15 Dg 2457) --- Respondent(s) 3 MAC No. 960 of 2022 1 - Sunita Yadav W/o Rajendra Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o Bhim Nagar, Near Deepak Kirana Stores, Supela Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 1 - Devendra Pratap Singh S/o Ramniwas Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o 42/2, Radhika Nagar Supela Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ( Driver Of Car No. Cg-15/dg-2457 ), 2 - Kamla Malik W/o Vinod Malik Aged About 42 Years R/o House No. 235, Manendragarh Road, Near Ambedkar Chowk, Ambikapur, Tahsil And District Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh ( Owner Of Car No. Cg-15/dg-2457 ), 3 - Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Rajendra Park Chowk, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ( Insurer Of Car No. Cg-15/dg-2457 ) --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advcoate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 4 11.11.2025 1. Since all these three appeals have arisen out of a common accident, therefore, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. These appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) have been preferred by the appellants/ injured claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 30/06/2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 237/2020, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 23,000/- to the appellant Thameshwar Deshmukh in MAC/962/2022, Rs. 67,000/- to the appellant Archana Avsare in MAC/966/2022 and Rs. 23,000/- to the appellant Sunita Yadav in MAC/960/2022 after deducting 50% compensation amount towards contributory negligence. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that merely because head on collision took place between the vehicles, it cannot be assumed that the Driver of the Auto Rickshaw in which the appellants were sitting was also contributorily negligent unless it is established by leading evidence, which the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company have failed to do. Similarly, alleged driving of the 5 Auto Rickshaw, without the Driver possessing valid and effective license, would not amount to contributory negligence, as such, the Claims Tribunal has erred in deducting 50% of the compensation amount towards contributory negligence and since the compensation amount is rather on the lower side, it may suitably be enhanced. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 would support the impugned award and submit that the compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. Though the plea of contributory negligence and non- possession of the driving license by the Driver of the Auto Rickshaw has been taken by the respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company), but the fact remains that driving of the vehicle without valid driving license would not automatically result in holding that there was contributory negligence on his part. 7. The Supreme Court, in the matter of Saraswati Palariya and Others v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and 6 Others1, has clearly held that the finding of the High Court of contributory negligence on the ground that the deceased was driving the vehicle without a driving license is equally unsustainable. It has further been held that driving without a valid driving license may expose the claimant(s) to other liabilities but no inference of contributory negligence can be arrived on that basis. 8. Similarly, the plea of contributory negligence alone is not sufficient and it must be supported by evidence. In the matter of Prabhavati and Others v. Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan, Transport Corporation2, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have relied upon the decision of Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan3 and held that in the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence on record, it cannot be assumed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. 9. Further following the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh4, their Lordships have held that on an allegation simpliciter, 1 2018 SCC Online SC 3988 2 2025 SCC Online SC 455 3 (2013) 9 SCC 166 4 (2015) 1 SCC 539 7 it cannot be presumed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both vehicles. 10. Thus, in view of the aforesaid legal position, the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal with regard to contributory negligence is hereby set aside and the appellants/claimants are held entitled for full compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal prior to the deduction of 50% amount towards contributory negligence vis.a.vis appellant/claimant Thameshwar Deshmukh in MAC/962/2022 is entitled for total compensation amount of Rs. 46,000/-, appellant/claimant Archana Avsare in MAC/966/2022 is entitled for total compensation amount of Rs. 1,34,000/- and appellant/claimant Sunita Yadav in MAC/960/2022 is entitled for total compensation amount of Rs. 46,000/-. Respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 25/11/2020 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact as no ground is made out to further enhance the compensation amount. 8 11. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet