1 2026:CGHC:22245 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1072 of 2020 1 - Smt Jyoti Jain W/o Chakresh Kumar Jain Aged About 24 Years R/o Qt. No. E.W.S. 15, Dr. R.P. Nagar Korba , Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Kartikeshwar Prasad Tiwari S/o Late Manrakhan Lal Tiwari Aged About 42 Years R/o Near Primari School, Ratakhar Korba, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sanwar Singh S/o Shri Abhay Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Qt. No. 01, 397/1, Bramhanpara, Adile Chowk , Durpa Road, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o M.I.G. 1/106, Maharana Pratap Nagar Korba , Police Station , Tahsil And District Korba Chhattigarh. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager , Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited , Branch Office , 4th Floor, Maruti Hites , G.E. Road, Mahova Bazar , Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Of The Offending Vehicle), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. PK Patel, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Utsav Mahisvar, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 12.05.2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant- Claimant 2 challenging the impugned award dt. 06.09.2019, whereby though learned Claims Tribunal has calculated a total sum of Rs.90,800/- as compensation to the claimant, but deducted 40% amount towards contributory negligence and only granted Rs.54,480/- as compensation to the claimant. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit that learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in deducting 40% amount on the ground of contributory negligence, as at the time of accident, the appellant/claimant was only sitting as co-passenger in the offending vehicle and was not driving the same and, as such, the appellant is entitled for full compensation. He would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mohammed Siddique & another v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others 1 in support of his submission. Thus, the present appeal be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned award and prays for dismissal of this appeal. 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. The Supreme Court in the matter of Mohammed Siddique has clearly held that “in absence of any evidence to show that the wrongful act on the part of the deceased victim contributed either to the accident or to the nature of the injuries sustained, the victim could not have been held guilty of contributory negligence” [See: Para-14]. In the present 1 Civil Appeal No.79/2020, decided on 08.01.2020 3 case also there is no material available on record to show that the appellant/claimant was driving the offending the vechile and due to her negligency the accident in question took place. Indeed, it is admittedly clear that she was only sitting as co-passenger in the offending vehicle, which was driven by her brother, at the time of accident. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in deducting 40% amount of the ground of contributory negligence, whereas, the appellant is entitled for full compensation i.e. Rs.90,800/-. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the appellant is entitled for full compensation i.e. Rs.90,800/- and the findings relating to deduction of 40% amount on the ground of contributory negligence is hereby quashed. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 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