-1- NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 82 of 2024 1 - Devichandra Pardhi S/o Late Khorbaharu Pardhi Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Semariya, Post - Kanhera, Police Station And Tashil Bemetara, District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) 2 - Gajru Pardhi S/o Late Khorbaharu Pardhi Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Semariya, Post - Kanhera, Police Station And Tashil Bemetara, District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Kunvariya Bai W/o Radheshyam Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Bahera, Tahsil And District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants/claimants versus 1 - Sunil Kumar Dewangan S/o Shankarlal Dewangan Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No.17, Bemetara, Police Station And District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Maruti Akl. L. 6 No. C.G./25/l/5200) 2 - Anil Dewangan S/o Shankarlal Dewangan Aged About 28 Years R/o 107, Maszid Gali, Ward No.17, Bemetara, Police Station And District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Maruti Akl. L. 6 No. C.G./25/l/5200) 3 - Univarsal Shompo General Insurance Company Ltd, 1st Floor B-7, Shreeram Nagar, T.V. Tawar Road, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh . Pin No. 492001, Phone No. 0771-4282533, (Insurance Company Of Maruti Akl. L. 6 No. C.G./25/l/5200, Policy No. 2367/66994808/00/000 Date From 31-05-2022 To 30-05-2023) ... Respondents For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06.10.2025 -2- 1) Heard. 2) The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against an award passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bemetara in Claim Case No.92/2023 dated 06.12.2023 whereby, the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs.3,93,560/- with interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of Budhyarin Bai. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that the age of Budhyarin Bai/deceased was 58 years at the time of accident and she was dashed by offending car bearing registration No.C.G.25/L/5200 on 02.01.2023. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has not awarded proper compensation for loss of future prospect. He would contend that for loss of consortium, only Rs.40,000/- has been given to one of the claimants, whereas, other two children are also entitled for compensation on said head. He would further contend that the learned Tribunal committed error of law while deducting 50% for contributory negligence, whereas, the deceased was pillion rider in motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.25/M/0422. He would pray to modify the award passed by the learned Tribunal accordingly. 4) On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Sahu. They would submit that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation. It is also argued that the learned Tribunal rightly applied principle of -3- contributory negligence as there was negligence on the part of the motorcycle driven by Sunil Kumar Dewangan. They would further submit that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6) Admittedly, the deceased Budhyarin Bai was pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.25/M/0422 and said motorbike was being driven by Sunil Kumar Dewangan on 02.01.2023. The motorbike was dashed by the offending car bearing registration No.C.G.25/L/5200. Consequently, the deceased Budhyarin Bai sustained injuries and died. The age of the deceased was 60 years as considered by the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal rightly applied multiplier of 9. Learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased to the tune of Rs.9960/- which appears to be proper. Learned Tribunal deducted 1/3rd for personnel and living expenses of the deceased, which does not require interference by this Court. Learned Tribunal decided the issue No.4 with regard to contributory negligence in affirmative and deducted 50% from total amount of compensation on the ground that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle. 7) It is a well-settled principle of law that in case of composite negligence, the principle of contributory negligence would not apply. As the deceased was pillion rider, therefore, the learned Tribunal committed -4- error of law while deciding the issue with regard to contributory negligence in affirmative. 8) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of T. O. Anthony v. Karvarnan and others, (2008) 3 SCC 748., while dealing with the similar issue held as under : “6. 'Composite negligence' refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrong doers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrong-doers. In such a case, each wrong doer, is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrong-doer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrong-doer separately. On the other hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence of the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stands reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence.” 9) Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal while deciding the issue No.4, the findings with regard to contributory negligence appear to be erroneous and accordingly hereby set aside. 10) Admittedly, learned Tribunal has not granted compensation for future prospect and also failed to award compensation for loss of consortium to -5- claimant No.2 & 3, thus, in my opinion, the award requires recomputation. The compensation is being revisited herein below: Sr.No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs.9960 x12 = Rs. 1,19520/- Rs.9960 x 12 = Rs. 1,19,520/- 2. Deduction (-) 1/3 =Rs. 79,680/- (-) 1/3= Rs.79,680/- 3 Future Prospect NIL 10% (Rs.79,680/-) Rs.87,648/- 4. Multiplier (x) 9 = Rs. 7,17,120/- (x) 9 =Rs. 7,88,832/- 5. Other heads loss of Consortium (for appellant No.1) Rs.40,000/- Loss of Consortium for Appellant No.2 & 3 = Rs.40000 x 3 = Rs.1,20,000/- 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 7. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 8. Total Rs. 7,87,120/- Rs. 9,38,832/- Contributory negligence 50% Rs.3,93,560/- 11) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.3,93,560/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.9,38,832/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.3,93,560/-, the appellants are entitled for an additional -6- amount of Rs.5,45,272/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of its realization. The rest of the terms and conditions shall remain intact. 12) Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha