Page No.1 of 5 IN MAC-205-2023 2025:CGHC:48627 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 205 of 2023 [Arising out of award dt. 22.11.2022, passed in Claim Case No.66/2020 ( Pinki Bai Kanver and others v. Kabiruddin Ansari and another) by the 3rd Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (CG)] 1 - Pinki Bai Kanver W/o Late Toman Kanver, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Lulikasa, Post And P.S. - Gaindatola, Tahsil - Chhuriya, District (Revenuye And Civil) - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhatrapal Kanver, S/o Late Toman Kanver, Aged About 7 Years Through Her Legal Guardian Appellant No. 1 Mother Pinki Bai Kanver, Aged About 30 Years, W/o Late Toman Kanver, R/o Village Lulikasa, Post And P.S. - Gaindatola, Tahsil - Chhuriya, District (Revenuye And Civil) - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - Lakshya Kanver, S/o Shri Toman Kanver, Aged About 3 Years Through Her Legal Guardian Appellant No. 1 Mother Pinki Bai Kanver, Aged About 30 Years, W/o Late Toman Kanver, R/o Village Lulikasa, Post And P.S. - Gaindatola, Tahsil - Chhuriya, District (Revenuye And Civil) - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - Surturam Kanver, S/o Dularwa Kanver, Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Lulikasa, Post And P.S. - Gaindatola, Tahsil - Chhuriya, District (Revenuye And Civil) - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 5 - Kanad Bai Kaver, W/o Surturam Kanver, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Lulikasa, Post And P.S. - Gaindatola, Tahsil - Chhuriya, District (Revenuye And Civil) - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants Versus 1 - Kabiruddin Ansari S/o Lukman Ansari Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Tamai, Post And Tahsil Herodih, P.S. - Jaynagar, District Kodrama (Jharkhanad)at Present R/o Suraj Complex Apartment, SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 5 IN MAC-205-2023 Aamarnath Kata, Ring Road, No. 2, Kabeer Nagar, P.S. - Amanaka Tehsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Driver And Owner Of Trailer No. Cg-04-Jd-3863 2 - New India Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Branch Manage, Office At Second Floor, Housing Board Complex, New Bus Stand, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Trailer No. Cg.-04-Jd-3863. ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellants : Mr. Satish Surya, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 22.09.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants challenging the impugned 22.11.2022, passed in Claim Case No.66/2020 ( Pinki Bai Kanver and others v. Kabiruddin Ansari and another) by the 3rd Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (CG), whereby though learned Claims Tribunal has calculated a total sum of Rs.17,77,800/- as compensation for the death of Toman Kanver, but deducted 50% amount towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and has awarded a sum of Rs.8,88,900/- alongwith interest @ 9% PA from the date of claim application till its actual realization, which amount is held to be payable by the respondent No.03- Insurance Company). Page No.3 of 5 IN MAC-205-2023 2. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in deducting 50% amount on the ground of contributory negligence, as there is no evidence available on record with regard to the same. Even, the respondents- Insurance company has not taken the plea of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased specifically, yet, the learned Claims Tribunal deducted 50% amount for the same, which is per se illegal and bad in law. As such, the instant appeal be allowed by setting aside the finding with regard to the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the Tribunal is justified in assessing the compensation on notional basis and the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. It is vehemently submitted on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company that the learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely justified in deducting 50% amount toward contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, as there are ample evidence available on record with regard to the same. As such, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. In the instant case, though the learned Claims Tribunal has Page No.4 of 5 IN MAC-205-2023 deducted 50% amount on the ground of contributory negligence on the part of deceased, but a careful perusal of the record would show that no clinching evidence with regard to the same is available on record. Even, no specific plea has been taken by the respondent- Insurance Company with regard to the same and the only plea which was taken that the deceased was in drunken state and was driving the vehicle that too without having valid and effective driving license and, therefore, he died in the accident in question. However, no evidence has been led by the insurance company with regard to the said plea. Though, the learned Claims Tribunal by relying upon the postmortem report held that the deceased was in the state of intoxication, but admittedly, the insurance company has not taken any specific plea with regard to the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased at the time of accident. Even otherwise, the PM report (Ex.P/06) which has been relied upon by the learned Claims Tribunal is also of no use for the simple reason that the author of the same has not been examined by the respondent-insurance Company before the learned Claims Tribunal. As such, in light of the aforesaid reasoning, the learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in deducting 50% amount on the ground of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and, therefore, the findings recorded with regard to the same are liable to be and are hereby set aside. The appellants are held entitled to get Page No.5 of 5 IN MAC-205-2023 full amount of compensation as calculated by the learned Claims Tribunal i.e. Rs.17,77,800/-. It is held accordingly. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 6. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if