-1- NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 514 of 2019 1 - Ramsai Ayam S/o Shri Hardev Ayam Aged About 35 Years R/o Villge Dindo, Post Salwahi, Tahsil Ramanujganj, District Blarampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.(Driver Of Pick Up No. 64 H 5863), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Madan Prasad Gupta S/o Shri Jagdish Gupta Aged About 48 Years R/o Villge Dindo, Post Salwahi, Tahsil Ramanujganj, District Blarampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.(Owner Of Pick Up No. 64 H 5863), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ...Appellants versus 1 - Kishamtiya Marabi Wd/o Late Darshan Gond Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Barah Nagar, Post Salwahi, Tahsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. Presently Business Address C/o Ramvriksh Gond, Nawadhki, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ramkumar Marabi S/o Late Darshan Gond Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Barah Nagar, Post Salwahi, Tahsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. Presently Business Address C/o Ramvriksh Gond, Nawadhki, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Devbansh Marabi S/o Late Darshan Gond Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Barah Nagar, Post Salwahi, Tahsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. Presently Business Address C/o Ramvriksh Gond, Nawadhki, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Vivek Singh Marabi S/o Late Darshan Gond Aged About 17 Years Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Kismatiya, R/o Village Barah Nagar, Post Salwahi, Tahsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. Presently Business Address C/o Ramvriksh Gond, Nawadhki, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Kailash Marabi S/o Late Darshan Gond Aged About 15 Years Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Kismatiya, R/o Village Barah Nagar, Post Salwahi, Tahsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. Presently Business Address C/o Ramvriksh Gond, Nawadhki, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Sriram General Insurance Company Limited Fourth Floor, Maruti Heights, C.E. Road Basidsky Maruti Dealers, Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Pichup No. Up 64 H 5863), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents -2- For appellants/driver and owner of vehicle : Mr. Utkarsh Patel, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. P.K. Patel, Advocate For respondents No.1 to 5 : Mr. K.K. Prajapati, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Adv. For respondent No.6 : Mr. Animesh Pathak, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Amrito Das, Adv. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23.09.2025 1) Heard. 2) The appellants/driver and owner of the offending vehicle have challenged the award passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.86/2018, dated 05.02.2019, whereby, learned Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs.6,55,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum and fastened liability with the driver and owner of the vehicle. 3) The facts of the present case are that on 12.05.2018, the deceased Darshan Gond along with others were traveling in a goods carrying vehicle bearing registration No.UP 64-H/5863. On the way, the vehicle was stopped and the passengers were taking rest. The deceased Darshan Gond was sitting at the rear side of the vehicle but as the vehicle was parked on an inclined road, it automatically moved on a slope and the deceased Darshan Gond sustained grievous injuries over different parts of his body and succumbed to death. 4) The claimants who are widow and four children of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs.12,87,500/- on the ground that at the time of accident, age of the deceased was 40 years and he was earning Rs.6000/- per month. -3- 5) The owner, driver as well as the insurance company filed their reply to the claim application. They denied the contents of the claim application. 6) A perusal of the reply filed by the appellants would show that no plea with regard to contributory negligence was taken and therefore, learned Tribunal has not framed any issue in this regard. Learned Claims Tribunal passed an award on 05.02.2019. 7) Mr. Patel, counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the offending vehicle was parked at proper place and the deceased was taking rest at the rear side of the said vehicle. He would further submit that the deceased himself was negligent as he was taking rest at the back side of the vehicle which automatically moved on a slope and crushed the deceased. He would contend that the learned Tribunal ought to have framed issue with regard to contributory negligence. He would further contend that the award passed by the learned Tribunal may be modified holding that there was 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. 8) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Patel. They would submit that the deceased and others were gratuitous passengers in the goods carrying vehicle. They would contend that the vehicle was being plied in breach of insurance policy, therefore, the liability has been fastened with the driver and owner of the vehicle. They would further contend that the driver of the offending vehicle failed to follow the safety measures and without applying the parking brake, he parked the vehicle on an inclined road, therefore, vehicle automatically moved on a slope and the deceased who was taking rest at the backside of the vehicle sustained injuries and succumbed to death. They would submit that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased and the learned Tribunal has rightly -4- fastened the liability with the insurance company. It is also contended that the plea with regard to contributory negligence was not taken by the appellants in the reply filed before the learned Tribunal and therefore, no issue was framed in this regard. They would lastly submit that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 10) A perusal of the reply and award would show that no plea was taken by the appellants before the learned Tribunal with regard to contributory negligence. No issue was framed in this regard by the learned Tribunal and therefore, the parties did not lead evidence. 11) Admittedly, the vehicle was parked on an inclined road without applying parking brake and it automatically moved on a slope and consequently, the deceased, who was at the backside of the vehicle, sustained grievous injury and succumbed to death. 12) The manner, in which, the vehicle was parked without taking measures amounts to negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. As no plea with regard to contributory negligence was taken by the appellants in their reply and no issue was framed, the issue of contributory negligence cannot be raised by the appellants for the first time before this Court. 13) I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha