1 2025:CGHC:53801 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 773 of 2019 1 - Katwaru Ram S/o Narbada Prasad Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Jamdi, Police Station- Patna, Tahsil- Baikunthpur, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Babi Bai W/o Katwaru Ram Aged About 42 Years R/o Village- Jamdi, Police Station- Patna, Tahsil- Baikunthpur, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Sangeeta D/o Katwaru Ram Aged About 12 Years Through Her Natural Guardian Father Katwaru Ram S/o Narbada Prasad R/o Village- Jamdi, Police Station- Patna, Tahsil- Baikunthpur, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Fuleshwar Rajwade S/o Late Kamla Prasad Rajwade Aged About 46 Years R/o Village- Ramtirath, Police Station- Ramanujnagar, Tahsil- Ramanujnagar, District- Surajur, Chhattisgarh.........Owner Of Offending Vehicle Tractor Bearing Registration No. C.G.- 15- A- 5399., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sonuram Rajwade S/o Bijendra Rajwade Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Nakna, Post- Ramanujnagar, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh........Driver Of Offending Vehicle Tractor Bearing Registration No. C.G.- 15- A- 5399., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Limited, Bramha Road, Nearly Kumkum Hotel Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.......Insurer Of NIRMALA RAO 2 Offending Vehicle Tractor Bearing Registration No. C.G.- 15- A- 5399., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 710 of 2019 1 - Kavita W/o Akant Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Odgi, Police Station And Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Hari S/o Dayaram Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Odgi, Police Station And Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Bira Bai W/o Hari Prasad Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Odgi, Police Station And Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Fuleshwar Rajwade S/o Late Kamla Prasad Rajwade Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Ramtirath, Police Station Ramanujnagar, Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh...................Owner Of Offending Vehicle Tractor Bearing Registration No. C G 15 A 5399., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sonuram Rajwade S/o Bijendra Rajwade Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Nakna, Post Ramanujnagar , District Surajpur Chhattisgarh......................Driver Of Offending Vehicle Tractor Bearing Registration No. C G 15 A 5399., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Limited, Bramha Road, Near By Kumkum Hotel Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh...................Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Tractor Bearing Registration No. C G 15 A 5399., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - For Appellants : Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Insurance Company : Shri Akash Shrivastava, Advocate holding the brief of Shri R.N. Pusty, Advocate. 3 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04.11.2025 1. The appellants/ claimants have filed these two appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 9.1.2019, passed in Claim Case Nos.8 of 2017 & 09 of 2017 by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, District Korea whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petitions filed by the claimants. 2. The facts of the present case, in brief, are that on 11.1.2016, Anil, Akanth and Vishal proceeded to see a girl for marriage on their motorcycle and when they were returning home, the driver of the offending Tractor bearing C.G. 15-A-5399, by driving rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle, consequently, they sustained injuries and succumbed to death. The parents and sister of deceased - Anil filed Claim Case No.8 of 2017 and claimed a sum of Rs.34,50,000/- on the ground that at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 21 years and he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. The wife and parents of deceased – Akanth filed Claim Case No.9 of 2017 claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs.39,78,000/- on the ground that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 22 years and earning Rs.23,000/- per month. The driver, owner of the Tractor as well as the Insurance Company filed their replies to claim applications wherein, they pleaded that the offending Tractor bearing registration No. C.G. 15-A-5399 was in stationary condition and deceased – Anil, while riding his motorcycle rashly and negligently 4 dashed the stationary Tractor from the rear side. It is also pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of Tractor driver. Learned Tribunal framed issues, the parties led their evidence and thereafter, the learned Tribunal dismissed both claim petitions. 3. In MAC No.773 of 2019, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would argue that Anil was a pillion rider and thus, there was no negligence on his part. He would contend that the case of deceased – Akanth would be a case of composite negligence and the learned Tribunal wrongly applied the principle of contributory negligence while dismissing the claim applications. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohammed Siddique and Another vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 57. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Insurance Company would oppose. He would contend that according to the documentary evidence, the riders of the motorcycle were in a drunken condition and that deceased – Akanth while driving the motorcycle rashly and negligently dashed against the stationary Tractor from the rear side and thus, there was no negligence on the part of the Tractor driver and the deceased themselves were negligent and the learned Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim petition. He would contend that the FIR was lodged against the driver of the motorcycle namely, Akanth. 5. In MAC No.710 of 2019, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that there was no evidence to conclude that the Tractor was stationary. He would submit that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the Tractor. He would submit that the learned Tribunal wrongly recorded a finding that there was no negligence on the part of 5 the Tractor driver and that the motorcycle’s driver was negligent. He would pray to set aside the award. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Insurance Company would oppose. He would contend that according to the documentary evidence, the riders of the motorcycle were in drunken condition and that deceased – Akanth while driving the motorcycle rashly and negligently dashed against the stationary Tractor from the rear side and thus, there was no negligence on the part of the Tractor driver and the deceased themselves were negligent and the learned Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim petition. He would contend that the FIR was lodged against the driver of the motorcycle namely, Akanth. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Admittedly, three persons were travelling on motorcycle on the fateful day. The motorcycle was being driven by Akanth. FIR was lodged by Ramjeewan Rajwade (father-in-law- of deceased – Akanth) on 13.1.2016 against the driver of the motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.16 CA 9976. It is not in dispute that the driver of the motorcycle was deceased – Akanth. A counter FIR was lodged against the driver of the Tractor – Sonuram. 9. Kamvaru Ram Rajwade (AW-1) stated in his evidence that Anil was his son and on the fateful date, the driver of the Tractor was driving it rashly and negligently and dashed the motorcycle. Consequently, the riders of the motorcycle sustained injuries. 10. Vishal (AW-2), who was a pillion-rider on the motorcycle has stated that the driver of the offending vehicle drove it rashly and negligently and dashed the motorcycle. This witness has admitted the fact that 6 both the deceased and he were in a drunken condition. In cross- examination, this witness remained firm. 11. Ramjeewan (AW-3) was father-in-law of deceased – Akanth, was a hearsay witness. 12. Phuleshwar Rajwade (NAW1), owner of the offending Tractor – Trolley has admitted the fact that the offending Tractor was being driven by Sonuram Rajwade and it was seized by the police and that a criminal case was lodged against him, which is pending consideration before the Competent Criminal Court in Surajpur. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that the driver informed him that the Tractor was in stationary condition. 13. Rakesh Kumar Vidyardhi (NAW-2) deposed that the offending Tractor was insured with the Insurance Company. He further stated that the documents of the criminal case would reveal that the Tractor was stationary and three persons were travelling on the motorcycle. 14. Learned Tribunal held that the motorcycle was being driven by deceased – Akanth in a drunken condition, contrary to the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules. It is also held that three persons were travelling on the motorcycle and it was dashed against the stationary Tractor and that there was no negligence on the part of the Tractor driver. 15. In both the cases, the learned Tribunal has not concluded that the offending Tractor was in stationary condition. The owner of the Tractor himself has admitted the fact that the offending Tractor was being driven by Sonuram Rajwade. The Insurance Company failed to examine Sonuram Rajwade and no investigation was conducted by 7 the Insurance Company to establish the fact that the vehicle was stationary. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohammed Siddique (supra) while dealing with the issue of contributory negligence in a case where the deceased was riding on a motorcycle along with the driver and another person, held that such a person cannot be held guilty merely for being a party to the violation of law. The relevant paragraph 12 is reproduced herein-below: “13. But the above reason, in our view, is flawed. The fact that the deceased was riding on a motor cycle along with the driver and another, may not, by itself, without anything more, make him guilty of contributory negligence. At the most it would make him guilty of being a party to the violation of the law. Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, imposes a restriction on the driver of a two wheeled motor cycle, not to carry more than one person on the motor cycle. Section 194C inserted by the Amendment Act 32 of 2019, prescribes a penalty for violation of safety measures for motor cycle drivers and pillion riders. Therefore, the fact that a person was a pillion rider on a motor cycle along with the driver and one more person on the pillion, may be a violation of the law. But such violation by itself, without anything more, cannot lead to a finding of contributory negligence, unless it is established that his very act of riding along with two others, contributed either to the accident or to the impact of the accident upon the victim. There must either be a causal connection between the violation and the accident or a causal connection between the violation and the impact of the accident upon the victim. It may so happen at times, that the accident could have been averted or the injuries sustained could have been of a lesser degree, if there had been no violation of the law by the victim. What could otherwise have resulted in a simple injury, might have resulted in a grievous injury or even death due to the violation 8 of the law by the victim. It is in such cases, where, but for the violation of the law, either the accident could have been averted or the impact could have been minimized, that the principle of contributory negligence could be invoked. It is not the case of the insurer that the accident itself occurred as a result of three persons riding on a motor cycle. It is not even the case of the insurer that the accident would have been averted, if three persons were not riding on the motor cycle. The fact that the motor cycle was hit by the car from behind, is admitted. Interestingly, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the deceased was wearing a helmet and that the deceased was knocked down after the car hit the motor cycle from behind, are all not assailed. Therefore, the finding of the High Court that 2 persons on the pillion of the motor cycle, could have added to the imbalance, is nothing but presumptuous and is not based either upon pleading or upon the evidence on record. Nothing was extracted from PW3 to the effect that 2 persons on the pillion added to the imbalance.” 17. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the awards passed by the learned Tribunal are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are hereby set aside. Both the matters are remitted back to the learned Tribunal to decide afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to the interested parties. The record of both the claim cases be sent to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 9.12.2025. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi