1 2025:CGHC:43076 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 50 of 2021 1 - Ramji Sahu S/o. Late Koliha Sahu Aged About 56 Years R/o Ward No. 5, Karmanagar, Nagar Panchayat Parpodi, Police Station- Parpodi, Tahsil- Saja, District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Toman Sahu S/o Ramji Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward No. 5, Karmanagar, Nagar Panchayat Parpodi, Police Station- Parpodi, Tahsil- Saja, District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants Versus 1 - Bishat Verma S/o Inderman Aged About 44 Years R/o Village- Kurlu, Police Station- Parpodi, Tahsil- Saja, District- Bemetara (Chhattisgarh), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Aankhin Bai W/o. Bishat Verma Aged About 39 Years R/o Village- Kurlu, Police Station- Parpodi, Tahsil- Saja, District- Bemetara (Chhattisgarh), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Address- Near Grand Dhillan Hotel, 306 Second Floor, Khichriya Complex, Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Hemchand Prajapati, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sanjeev Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Vartika Shrivastava, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 25/08/2025 2 1. Appellant owner of the offending vehicle filed this appeal challenging the impugned award dated 13.03.2020 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, District - Bemetara in Claim Case No. 106/2019 whereby, the Tribunal allowed application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Act, 1988). 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 20.06.2019 at about 09:30 P.M., deceased Krishna Verma was returning to his home at Village Kurlu on his motorcycle, when he reached near Laxmi Traders, Village Pachpedi, Non-Applicant No. 1 while driving his vehicle i.e. Tractor bearing registration no. CG 07 AS 8961, rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of Krishna Verma and caused accident. In the accident, Krishna Verma suffered grievous injuries over his person and he succumbed to his injuries on the spot. Subsequent to the said accident, F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 72/2019, P.S. Parpodi, District – Bemetara was registered against the Non-applicant for the offences punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3/181, 5/180, 50(2)/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Claimants who are parents of the of the deceased filed application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehciles Act, 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,50,000/-. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in not considering that there was head on collision between the two vehicles i.e. Tractor and motorcycle, however, fell into error in not holding that the deceased was also contributory negligent to the extent and deducted amount of compensation computed towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. 3 4. Learned counsel for the respective respondents opposes the submission of the counsel for the appellant and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence brought on record by the respective parties have rightly passed the impugned award and further recorded a finding that the offending vehicle was being driven in breach of policy conditions as driver of the offending vehicle was not possessed with valid and effective driving license. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the claim case. 6. The only ground raised by counsel for appellant that the Claims Tribunal erred in not deducting the amount of compensation so computed towards the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. 7. Perusal of the pleadings in the reply submitted by the Non-applicant No. 1 & 2 would submit that they have out-rightly denied the fact the fact of accident from the offending Tractor. There is no specific pleading that the deceased was also contributory negligent to the accident. Merely the fact that there was head on collision between the two vehicles, contributory negligence on the part of the deceased cannot be considered to be proved. Contributory negligence is a fact which is not only required to be pleaded in the reply or pleadings, but is also required to be proved in accordance with law by producing admissible piece of evidence. 8. In the case at hand, there was no pleading with regard to contributory negligence in the reply submitted by the appellants nor any independent witness have been examined in this regard. Driver of the 4 offending vehicle was examined before the learned Claims Tribunal and have denied the fact of accident from the offending vehicle. 9. In the aforementioned facts of the case and further considering that no issue was framed by the learned Claims Tribunal, I do not find any good ground to accept the submission raised by counsel for appellant for the first time before this Court. No other ground is raised for consideration of this Court and therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant being sans merit is liable to be and accordingly, dismissed. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/-/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY