1 2026:CGHC:1763 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1903 of 2019 1 - Kishan Kumbhkar S/o. Manarakhan Kumbhkar Aged About 50 Years R/o. Village Amdi, P.S. Arjuni, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Rameshwari W/o. Kishan Kumbhkar Aged About 47 Years R/o. Village Amdi, P.S. Arjuni, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Geetanjali D/o. Kishan Kumbhkar Aged About 21 Years R/o. Village Amdi, P.S. Arjuni, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 4 - Gulshan Kumbhkar S/o. Kishan Kumbhkar Aged About 19 Years R/o. Village Amdi, P.S. Arjuni, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Vijay Kumar Singh Partner Yogendra Singhl, R/o. Sihawa Road Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh (Owner), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, M.B. Trade Centre, Second Floor, Ghadi Chowk Dhamtari, Tahsil Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh (Driver), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. NIRMALA RAO 2 For Respondent No.2 : Shri Akash Shrivastava, Advocate holding the brief of Shri R.N. Pusty, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12.01.2026 1. The appellants/ claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 9.8.2019, passed in Claim Case No.83 of 2014 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.7,10,400/- and deducted 50% for contributory negligence alongwith interest @ 9% per annum on account of death of Lucky Kumbhkar. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that on 14.4.2014, deceased – Lucky Kumbhkar was riding the motorcycle, and while he was returning from village Sanaud to village Bohara alongwith two pillion-riders, the motorcycle rammed into a stationary Truck bearing registration No.C.G. O4 J-1656. He would submit that a claim case was filed by parents and siblings of the deceased. He would submit that the claimants pleaded that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 22 years and earning Rs.7,000/- per month but the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month, which is on the lower side. He would contend that under other conventional heads, the learned Tribunal has not granted just and proper compensation. He would further submit that the offending Truck was stationary without taking any precautions; its indicators and rear lights were not illuminated, which caused the 3 accident. He would submit that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased rather there was negligence on the part of the driver of the stationary Truck but the learned Tribunal decided the issue of contributory negligence against the claimants and held that there was contributory negligence in ratio of 50:50 between the rider of the motorcycle and the driver of the Truck. He would submit that the Insurance Company as well as the driver and owner of the offending Truck failed to prove negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, therefore, the learned Tribunal has wrongly decided this issue against the claimants. He would pray to allow this appeal. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellants. He would submit that there is admission on the part of the claimants’ witnesses that the vehicle was stationary and the rider of the bike had sufficient opportunity to avoid the accident. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has rightly decided the issue of contributory negligence. With regard to income of the deceased, Shri Akash Shrivastava, Advocate would submit that the claimants could not establish the alleged income by leading cogent evidence. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection. 5. The issue of negligence/ contributory negligence was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Laxman Iyer and Ors., reported in (2003) 4 SCR 984 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no statutory definition of negligence but it is categorized as either composite or 4 contributory. Negligence is omission of duty caused either by an omission to do something which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations who ordinarily by reason of conduct of human affairs would do or obligated to, or by doing something which a prudent or reasonable man would not do. What constitutes negligence varies under different conditions and in determining whether negligence exists in a particular case, or whether a mere act or course of conduct amounts to negligence. Where an accident is due to negligence of both the parties, substantially there would be contributory negligence and both would be blamed. In a case of contributory negligence, the crucial question on which liability depends would be whether either party could, by exercise of reasonable care, have avoided the consequence of other's negligence. 6. In the matter of Raj Rani vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 654 in paragraph 19, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the pressure by a person to use reasonable care for the safety of either himself or his property, so that he becomes blameworthy in part as an author of his own wrong. In the matter of Usha Rajkhowa and Others. vs. Paramount Industries and Ors. reported in (2009) 14 SCC 71, the Truck was a stationary and the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld ratio of liability at 50:50 in view of the fact that there was negligence on the part of the appellant. Para 19 is reproduced herein below: “19. Under such circumstances, applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, it is clear that it was because of the negligence on the part of the truck that the accident took place. After all the hit given by the truck was so powerful that two persons in the car died on the spot, while the third escaped with serious 5 injuries. When we see the award of the Tribunal, as also the appellate judgment, they are astonishingly silent on these aspects. We are, therefore, convinced that there was no question of any contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruti car and it was solely because of the negligence on the part of the truck that the accident took place.” 7. In the present case, in the first round, the matter was remitted back to the learned Tribunal to decide it afresh as the claim case was dismissed by the learned Tribunal. The FIR (Ex.A/1) would show that the offending Truck was stationary on the road and the deceased while driving his motorcycle, rammed into the stationary Truck. In the merg intimation (Ex.A/2), the same facts are narrated. The site plan (Ex.A/3) would show that the half body of the stationary Truck was on the road and according to Ex.A/4 the indicators of the Truck were not operational, therefore, it can safely be presumed that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the Truck too. 8. The claimants examined Kishan Kumbhkar (AW-1), who admitted in cross-examination that he was informed by the persons present over at the place of incident that his son rammed into the stationary Truck. 9. Upendra Kumar (AW-2), who was a pillion-rider admitted that the Truck was stationary and the motorcycle dashed it from the back side. This witness also admitted that the headlight of the motorcycle was properly working and the stationary vehicle was visible. The evidence of these two witnesses would make it clear that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the Truck as well as the rider of the motorcycle and the learned Tribunal has rightly decided this issue in 50:50 ratio. 6 10. Learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- whereas the minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of April, 2014 was Rs.5,468/- and the learned Tribunal should have taken that figure while computing the income of the deceased. Further, learned Tribunal has not granted compensation for loss of consortium to the parents of the deceased according to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, the parents are entitled to get loss of consortium alongwith 20% additional amount. On other heads, the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. 11. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the contention with regard to contributory negligence raised by counsel for the appellants is rejected but at the same time, the compensation is enhanced as under: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Rs.4,500 x 12 = Rs. 54,000/- Rs. 5,468 x 12 = Rs. 65,616/- 2. Future Prospect 40% - 21,600/- (54,000 + 21,600 = 75,600/- 40% - 26,246/- (65,616 + 26,246 = 91,862/-) 3. Deduction (-) 50% (37,800/-) (75,600 – 37,800 = 37,800/- (-) 50% (45,931/-) (Rs.91,862-45,931) = Rs. 45,931/- 4. Multiplier (x) 18 = Rs. (37,800 x 18 = 6,80,400/-) (x) 18 = Rs. (45,931 x 18 = 8,26,758/-) 5. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 7 6. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 7. Loss of Consortium to parents --- Rs. 48,000 x 2 = 96,000/- (parents) TOTAL (50:50 ratio) Rs. 3,55,200/- Rs. 4,76,379/- 12. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.3,55,200/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.4,76,379/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.3,55,200/-, the appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,21,179/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 13. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi