1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 854 of 2016 Judgment Reserved on : 12/06/2025 Judgment Delivered on : 04/07/ 2025 • Hemlal S/o Narhar Sahu, Aged About 30 Years, Caste Teli, R/o Village Borjhara, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.......Claimant, --- Appellant versus 1. Mandeep Singh Dhillan S/o Gurudyal Singh Dhillan, R/o Near Model School, Dak Bangla Ward, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, 2. Upanshu Sahu S/o Siyaram Sahu, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Borjhara, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, 3. Branch Manager, I. C. I. C. I. Lombard, General Insurance Company Limited, Vanijya Bhawan, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Post Pandri, Tahsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh..........Non Applicants, --- Respondents AND MAC No. 843 of 2016 • Upanshu Sahu S/o Siyaram Sahu, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Borjhara, Tahsil Kurud, Civil and Revenue District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh........Claimant, --- Appellant Versus 1. Mandeep Singh Dhillan S/o Gurudyal Singh Dhillan, R/o Near Model School, Dak Bangla Ward, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.07.04 15:54:31 +0530 2 2. Branch Manager, I. C. I. C. I. Lombard, General Insurance Company Limited, Vanijya Bhawan, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Post Pandri, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh..........Non Applicants --- Respondents For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Arjun Lal Singraul, Advocate For Respondent No.3 (MAC No.854/2016) : Mr. Saurabh Sharma along with Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocates For Respondent No.2 (MAC No.843/2016 : Mr. Animesh Pathak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal CAV Judgment 1. Since both the above captioned appeals arise out of common award dated 15.03.2016, therefore, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These are the claimants’ appeals for enhancement of compensation of Rs.2,11,050/- in favour of Hemlal passed in Claim Case No.129/2013 by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh (for short ‘the Tribunal’) and Rs.1,62,070/- passed in favour of Upanshu Sahu in Claim Case No.133/2013 by the same Tribunal vide common award dated 15.03.2016. The Tribunal further held that since on the date of accident, Upanshu Sahu the driver of the motorcycle bearing registration No.CG04-DN-9353 was also found negligent equally in driving the same, therefore, the Tribunal deducted 40% towards contributory negligence on the part of Upanshu Sahu and accordingly, awarded the remaining amount of 60% from the total compensation amount. 3. As per averments made in the claim petitions, on 01.05.2011, appellant Upanshu Sahu (MAC No.843/2016) was going on his 3 motorcycle bearing registration No.CG04-DN-9353 along with appellant Hemlal (MAC No.854/2016) who was sitting in the said motorcycle as a pillion rider towards Raipur from village Borjhara. When the appellants reached near village Kachna, at that relevant time, one Indica Car bearing registration No.CG05-A-8011 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘offending vehicle’) which was driven by the driver Rekhraj rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle, due to which the driver of the motorcycle (Upanshu Sahu) and the pillion rider (Hemlal) sustained grievous injuries on their bodies. Thereafter, the appellants Hemal and Upanshu were taken to the hospital for medical treatment. Appellant Hemlal was admitted in Ramkrishna Care Hospital from 01.05.2011 to 13.05.2011 whereas appellant Upanshu Sahu was admitted in the same hospital from 01.05.2011 to 15.05.2011. Further, a sum of Rs.1,81,050/- was incurred on the treatment of appellant Hemlal and Rs.1,32,070/- was incurred on the treatment of appellant Upanshu. 4. On claim petitions being filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.7,50,000/- and Rs.7,65,000/- respectively, the Tribunal, considering the evidence led by both the parties, passed a common award as mentioned in paragraph 2 of this judgment. Being aggrieved with the impugned award, the claimants have filed the appeals seeking enhancement. 5. Shri Arjun Lal Singroul, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant Hemlal submits that Hemlal was the pillion rider of the motorcycle and there was head on collision between the two vehicles. He further submits that though the motorcycle was not insured with the insurance 4 company but the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent insurance company, therefore, the insurance company is fully liable to pay the compensation. He further submits that the appellant Hemlal was grievously injured in the said collison and therefore, he was admitted in the hospital for medical treatment from 01.05.2011 to 13.05.2011 and a sum of Rs.1,81,050/- was incurred during course of treatment. He further submits that similarly, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of Upanshu Sahu is also on lower side. He further submits that in both the cases the learned Tribunal has awarded meager amount of Rs.30,000/- towards medical treatment, pain & suffering and special diet but not awarded any amount towards transportation and attendant. Further, both the appellants have suffered loss of income for two months due to said accident. Thus, looking to the above, learned Tribunal ought to have enhanced suitably the amount towards medical treatments and other heads. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of T.O. Anthony Vs. Karvarnan and Others reported in (2008) 3 SCC 748. 6. Mr. Saurabh Sharma, learned counsel for respondent Insurance Company (MAC No.854/2016), while admitting that no separate appeal has been filed against the impugned award, submits that the offending vehicle was insured with them and there is no violation of any insurance policy occurred during the alleged accident. However, the appellant Hemlal has filed the claim petition against both the vehicles i.e. the motorcycle and the Indica Car (offending vehicle) as there was head on collision between the two vehicles. Therefore, considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal has rightly 5 come to the conclusion that there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle and while observing the same, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly decided the compensation against both the drivers in the ratio of 60:40. He further supports the impugned award and submits that the Tribunal considering all the relevant aspects of the matter has awarded compensation, which needs no interference by this Court. Mr. Animesh Pathak, who is also appearing for the respondent insurance company (MAC No.843/2016) admits that no separate appeal has been filed by the insurance company and further submits that the offending vehicle was insured with them and there is no violation of any insurance policy during the said accident. Thus, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. As regards the income of the appellants/injured persons, there is no dispute with regard to their income. However, medical report shows that the appellants Hemlal and Upanshu Sahu have suffered grievous injuries on their bodies as a result of which they were admitted in the Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur for 13 days and 15 days for better treatment and a sum of Rs.1,81,050/- and Rs.1,32,070/- were incurred during their treatment respectively. The Tribunal has considered that due to the injuries suffered by the appellants, they were unable to perform their work for about two months but, looking to the nature of injuries, the injured persons must have incurred loss of income for about three months. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- to each of the appellants towards loss of income, pain & 6 suffering, special diet which needs to be enhanced suitably as the Tribunal has failed to grant amount towards transportation expenses and attendant charge. Thus, looking to the nature of injuries sustained by the appellants, considering the medical reports available on record, it would be just and proper to award further a sum of Rs.70,000/- which makes the compensation suitably, in addition to Rs.30,000/- as awarded earlier by the Tribunal. Thus, the claimants/appellants are entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/- each (Rs.30,000 by the Tribunal + Rs.70,000 by this Court) towards loss of income for three months, pain & suffering, special diet, transportation expenses and attendant charges. 9. With regard to the occurrence of the accident, Upanshu Sahu (appellant in MAC No.843/2016), in his statement has stated that on the date of accident, he along with Hemlal (appellant in MAC No.854/2016) were going from village Borjhara to Raipur and Hemlal was sitting in his motorcycle as a pillion rider. He further admitted that near Bhakara-Raipur Road, accident occurred on account of head on collision between the motorcycle and Indica Car (offending vehicle). He further admitted that police did not register any complaint against him as his vehicle was not so heavier. He further submitted that due to negligence of driver of both the vehicles, collided with each other and accordingly, the accident occurred. Thus, in the light of the statement of the appellant Upanshu Sahu, this accident appears to have occurred due to contributory negligence of drivers of both the vehicles and as a result of which the appellants suffered grievous injuries. Accordingly, the Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, assumed the extent of negligence of the 7 driver of the offending vehicle to 60% and further assumed the extent of negligence of the driver of the motorcycle to 40%. 10.Dealing with the case of appellant Hemlal (MAC No.854/2016), it is undisputed fact that the accident occurred due to negligence of drivers of both the vehicles. Further, the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company and there is no breach of any policy condition, therefore, the insurance company/non-applicant No.3 is liable to pay the compensation up to 60% of the total awarded amount. Similarly, Upanshu Sahu/non-applicant No.2 is held liable to pay 40% of the awarded amount. Further, dealing with the case of appellant Upanshu Sahu (MAC No.843/2016), the insurance company/non-applicant No.2 is held responsible to pay 60% of the total awarded amount. Further, the appellant himself was involved in the occurrence of the accident and is therefore, held responsible for 40% towards contributory negligence. Thus, he is only liable to get 60% of the awarded amount from the insurance company/non-applicant No.2. 11. For the foregoing reasons, I shall recompute the total compensation to be awarded to the appellants in both the appeals. Appellant Hemlal (MAC No.854/2016) has incurred Rs.1,81,050/- on the medical treatment and further, he has been granted total Rs.1,00,000/- towards other heads. Thus, he is liable to get total compensation amount of Rs.2,81,050/- (Rs.1,81,050 + Rs.1,00,000/-) out of which 60% amount i.e. 1,68,630/- will be paid by the insurance company/non-applicant No.3 and 40% amount i.e. Rs.1,12,420/- will be paid by Upanshu Sahu/non-applicant No.2. Ordered accordingly. 12.Likewise, appellant Upanshu Sahu (MAC No.843/2016) has incurred 8 Rs.1,32,070/- on his medical treatment and further, he has been granted total Rs.1,00,000/- towards other heads. Thus, he is entitled to be awarded total compensation of Rs. 2,32,070/- (Rs.1,32,070 + Rs.1,00,000/-) out of which he is only entitled to get 60% amount i.e. Rs.1,39,242/- from the insurance company/non-applicant No.2. Ordered accordingly. So far as the judgment referred to by the counsel for the appellants is concerned, the same is distinguishable and would not be helpful in the present appeals. 13.In the result, both the above captioned appeals filed by the respective claimants/appellants are allowed in part with modification in the impugned awards to the above extent. Rest of the conditions shall remain intact. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Prakash