1 MAC No. 285 of 2022 2025:CGHC:37145 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 285 of 2022  United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Micro–Office, Paras Complex, in front of State Bank of India, Gurudwara Station Road Durg, Tahsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1. Shatrughan Sinha S/o Late Kulanjan, aged about 54 years; 2. Smt. Kiran Sinha, W/o Shatrughan Sinha, aged about 50 years; 3. Venulata Sinha, D/o Shatrughan Sinha, aged about 24 years; 4. Smt. Siyabai, Wd/o Kulanjan Sinha, aged about 78 years, Respondents No.1 to 4 are R/o Village & P.O. Barhi, P.S., Tahsil & District Balod, Chhattisgarh...(Claimants) 5. Abdul Hanif, S/o Abdul Hamid, aged about 37 years, R/o Main Road Chandenibhatha, Dallirajhara, P.S. Rajhara, Tahsil Daundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh. .. (Driver) 6. Ashok Khas, S/o Gulab Singh Khas, R/o Aawaspara Ward Tekadodha, Tahsil Tekadodha Salhe, District Kanker Chhattisgarh. .. (Owner) ... Respondents ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.08.02 11:39:00 +0530 2 MAC No. 285 of 2022 For Appellant :- Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 4 :- Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 29.07 .2025 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 29.10.2021 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 79/2020, on the ground that Murli Manohar Sinha had committed contributory negligence due to which the accident was occurred by which he suffered grievous injuries and during treatment he died. 2. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has committed gross error in granting compensation compensation amount of 36,73,575/- ₹ along with the interest has been granted to the 3 MAC No. 285 of 2022 claimants without appreciating the fact of contributory negligence on the part of deceased Murli Manohar Sinha. He would further submit that the vehicle in question/offending vehicle was parked in the right place and due to the rashly and negligently motorcycle driven by the deceased, the accident was occurred, therefore, 50% of compensation awarded to the claimants be deducted on account of contributory negligence. 3. Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 herein, would support the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal and submit that with regard to the plea of contributory negligence, no evidence has been brought on record by the Insurance Company, therefore, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 4 MAC No. 285 of 2022 5. In written statement, so far as the plea of contributory negligence, it has simply been stated that the vehicle in question/offending vehicle was parked in proper place with all formalities and due to rashly and negligently driving of the deceased, he himself dashed the parked vehicle/offending vehicle with his motorcycle, on account of which he suffered grievous injuries and during treatment he died. However, except that no specific plea has been raised by the Insurance Company/appellant herein with regard to contributory negligence and moreover, no evidence has been led by the Insurance Company to substantiate the plea of contributory negligence. Further, the Claims Tribunal in paragraph No.12 of its judgment has clearly held while rejecting the plea of contributory negligence that the Insurance Company/appellant herein has failed to prove and establish that the deceased was driving his motorcycle rashly and negligently as no evidence has been brought on record by the Insurance Company. As such, the Claims Tribunal has rightly rejected the plea of contributory negligence of the Insurance Company. 5 MAC No. 285 of 2022 6. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal, it deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit