1 2025:CGHC:53717 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2018 of 2018 1 - The Project Officer (Icds) Integrated Woman And Child Development Service Project, Chhuriya-1, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. .........Defendant No. 2, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Kirti Sinha Wd/o Late Deenu Sinha Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Ghusera, Post Jatkanhar, P. S. Dongargarh, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. .........Claimants No. 1 To 3, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Kaushilya Bai W/o Ramesh Sinha Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Ghusera, Post Jatkanhar, P. S. Dongargarh, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ramesh Sinha S/o Late Amoli Sinha Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Ghusera, Post Jatkanhar, P. S. Dongargarh, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ......Claimants No. 1 To 3, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Lekhram Sahu S/o Bhagwat Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Khuta Chhuriya Ward No. 14, P. S. Chhuriya, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ..........Defendant No. 1, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Diwakar, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 03/11/2025 1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved by the award dated 31.01.2018 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Claim Case No.136/2016, whereby a total compensation of Rs.5,74,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimants. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the present claim arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 29.03.2016 at about 3:00 PM, wherein the deceased Deenu Sinha, aged about 24 years, while proceeding from village Chhuriya to village Chichola along with his friend on a motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-08-ZE- 0133, was hit near Baputola culvert by an offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG-02/0033, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, respondent No.4. As a result of the said collision, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death on the spot. The claimants, being the legal representatives of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking total compensation of Rs. 11,18,000/-, alleging that the offending vehicle belonged to the State Government, having been 3 allotted to the Project Director, I.C.D.S. Department, Rajnandgaon, and was being driven by respondent No.4 at the time of the accident, thereby making the appellant–State and the driver jointly liable. It was pleaded that the deceased was employed as a driver, earning approximately Rs. 200 per day. The appellant/State and respondent No.4, while contesting the claim, denied negligence on their part and asserted that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself, contending that the offending vehicle was stationary at the time as its driver had stopped for a natural call, and further alleging that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident. Upon due consideration of the evidence and arguments, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, vide award dated 31.01.2018 (Annexure A/1), held that the accident was the result of contributory negligence on the part of both the deceased and the driver Lekhram Sahu, respondent No.4. The Tribunal, finding no proof of actual income, assessed the deceased’s notional income at Rs. 5,000/- per month in accordance with the schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, applied a multiplier of 18, and awarded total compensation of Rs. 5,74,000/- inclusive of funeral and other expenses, along with interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant respectfully submits that the 4 learned Claims Tribunal has acted illegally and with material irregularity in entertaining and allowing the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, without properly considering whether the motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-08-ZE-0311 was being driven by a person possessing a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. The impugned award is silent on this material aspect, and in the absence of such a finding, fastening liability upon the appellant is wholly unjustified. It is further submitted that, in the absence of any definite finding regarding the income of the deceased, the claim petition itself was not maintainable under Section 163-A of the Act. The learned Tribunal has also failed to appreciate that the deceased, Deenu Sinha, who was driving the motorcycle, himself dashed against the offending vehicle, which was stationary and parked at the time of the incident, as its driver had temporarily stopped for a natural call. Hence, the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased, and not due to any fault on the part of the driver of the Government vehicle. The learned Tribunal erred in disregarding the material evidence and testimony of the driver of the offending vehicle, who had categorically stated that the deceased was responsible for the collision. The impugned award, therefore, suffers from perversity, non-consideration of material evidence, and is contrary to law and beyond the jurisdiction vested in the Tribunal. 5 4. Learned counsel for the claimants respectfully submits that the appeal is devoid of merit. The learned Claims Tribunal has rightly entertained the claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and passed a well-reasoned award after due appreciation of the evidence on record. The ownership of the offending vehicle by the State Government and its operation by its employee, respondent No.4, at the time of the accident stands admitted. The appellant’s plea regarding the absence of a valid driving licence or exclusive negligence of the deceased is wholly unsubstantiated and contrary to the record. However, the finding of contributory negligence recorded by the learned Tribunal is not supported by the evidence and is contrary to law. The assessment of compensation on the basis of notional income is just, reasonable, and in accordance with law. It is, therefore, prayed that the finding of contributory negligence be set aside and the impugned award be modified by fastening 100% liability upon the appellant/Project Officer, instead of apportioning 70% liability on the appellant and 30% on the deceased, as the appellant is solely responsible for the accident. 5. I have heard learned Council for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Rani and Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Ors. Reported in (2009) 13 SCC 654 relevant paragraphs are as under :- 6 “17. So far as the issue of “contributory negligence” is concerned, we may notice that the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd from the total compensation on the ground that deceased had contributed to the accident. The same, we find, has been upheld by the High Court. This Court in Usha Rajkhowa v. Paramount Industries [(2009) 14 SCC 71] discussed the issue of contributory negligence noticing, inter alia, earlier decisions on the same topic. It was held that: (SCC p. 75, para 20) “20. The question of contributory negligence on the part of the driver in case of collision was considered by this Court in Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak [(2002) 6 SCC 455 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1355] . That was also a case of collision between a car and a truck. It was observed in SCC p. 458, para 8: ‘8. … The question of contributory negligence arises when there has been some act or omission on the claimant's part, which has materially contributed to the damage caused, and is of such a nature that it may properly be described as “negligence”. Negligence ordinarily means breach of a legal duty to care, but when used in the expression “contributory negligence” 7 it does not mean breach of any duty. It only means the failure by a person to use reasonable care for the safety of either himself or his property, so that he becomes blameworthy in part as an “author of his own wrong”.’ 18. The principle of 50:50 in cases of contributory negligence has been discussed and applied in many cases before this Court. In Krishna Vishweshwar Hede v. Karnataka SRTC [(2008) 15 SCC 771 : 2008 ACJ 1617] this Court upheld the judgment of the Tribunal assessing the ratio of liability at 50:50 in view of the fact that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant and fixed the responsibility for the accident in the ratio of 50:50 on the driver of the bus and the appellant. 19. In this case, the truck was stationary. Some amount of negligence on the part of the deceased cannot be ruled out. Hence in the instant case, we find that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and accordingly the claimant was entitled to only 50% of the total amount of loss of dependency.” 7. Applying the above principle to the present case, it is evident that some negligence on the part of the deceased in hitting a stationary vehicle is established. At the same time, the driver of 8 the government vehicle also failed to take adequate precaution in parking the vehicle safely on the roadside. Therefore, both sides contributed equally to the occurrence. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to apportion the liability of the amount of loss of dependency in the ratio of 50% : 50% between the appellant/State and the deceased. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. The total compensation of ₹5,74,000/- as assessed by the Tribunal is maintained; however, the liability shall stand apportioned equally between the appellant and the deceased. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saxena