1 CGHC010007572024 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved on 24.04.2026 Pronouncement on 05.08.2026 Order (Full) Uploaded on 05.08.2026 MAC No. 86 of 2024 1 - Anjani Banafar W/o Late Pradeep Banafar Aged About 47 Years R/o Ward No., 19, Ram Mandir Ward, Bazar Para, Bemetara, Post, Tahsil And Distt- Bemetara, Cg 2 - Devendra Banafar S/o Late Pradeep Banafar Aged About 29 Years R/o Ward No., 19, Ram Mandir Ward, Bazar Para, Bemetara, Post, Tahsil And Distt- Bemetara, Cg 3 - Aditi Banafar D/o Pradeep Banafar Aged About 23 Years R/o Ward No., 19, Ram Mandir Ward, Bazar Para, Bemetara, Post, Tahsil And Distt- Bemetara, Cg ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Chandrshekahr S/o Mahesh Ram Navrange Aged About 27 Years Occupation- Driver, R/o Village- Indouri, Police Chouki Dashrangpur, Distt- Kabirdham, Cg, Presently R/o Near Durga Mandir, Milavat Para, Zone-3, Sector-11, Bhilai, Police Station- Khursipar, Distt- Durg, Cg- 490011 Mob- 88713780881 (Driver Of Truck No. Cg- 07- Na- 8111) 2 - Rajesh Sharma S/o Laxminarayan Sharma Aged About 50 Years R/o New Khursipar Baba Sweets, Police Station- Khuripar, Bhilai, Distt- Durg, Cg,- 490011 Mob-9826430271 (Owner Of Truck No. Cg- 07- Na- 8111) 3 - The Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Zonal Office Bhilai, Shivnath Complex, G.E. Road, Supela, Bhilai, Distt- Durg, Cg- 490023 Mob- 07884035006 (Insurance Company Of Truck No. Cg- 07- Na- 8111, Policy No. 192190/31/2023/51, Insurance Code- 131085938 Date From 13-05-2022 To 12-05-2023) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. Shikhar Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. R. N. Pusty and Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput PAWAN KUMAR Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2026.08.05 17:29:18 +0530 2 C A V Judgment This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) challenging the award dated 08.12.2023passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 89 of 2023 by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bemetara District Bemetara, CG. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs. 1,02,01,784/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 19,90,952/- on account of death of deceased Lokesh Banafar in an accident that took place on 18.01.2023 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Truck) bearing registration No. CG 07 NA 8111 driven by the respondent No. 1 / driver, owned by respondent No. 2 / owner and insured with respondent No. 3 / insurance company. 2. As per the pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was aged about 25 years and was earning Rs. 27,166/- per month by working as Assistant Grade- III in Municipality Bemetara (AG-3). The appellants / claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased therefore, the above stated compensation was claimed. 3. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 filed their written statement and denied the averments of the claim application and pleaded that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 3 / insurance company there is no violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the respondent No. 3 is liable to pay the compensation. 4. The respondent No. 3 filed his written statement and denied the averments of the claim application and pleaded that the compensation claimed is excessive and exaggerated. It is specifically denied that the deceased was employed as Assistant Grade-III in the Municipality, Bemetara and was earning Rs. 27,166/- per month. It is further pleaded that the registration of a criminal case against respondent No. 1 at Police Station Amanaka, District Raipur, does not establish his negligence. The 3 respondent No. 3 also pleaded that the driver of vehicle No. CG/07/NA/8111 was required to possess a valid and effective driving licence and that the vehicle must have had a valid permit and fitness certificate on the date of the accident. In the event of breach of the policy conditions, respondent No. 3 would not be liable to indemnify or pay compensation. 5. The learned Tribunal framed issues on the basis of the pleadings and decided the same in favour of the appellants / claimants. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants / claimants submits that the income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side and compensation on all other heads is also on the lower side. In support of above contention, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Smt. Sarla Verma and others VS. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. He further submits that the learned Tribunal erred in deducting 50% amount of compensation for contributing negligence. This finding deserves to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the award and submits that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased on the basis of evidence available on record and therefore, awarded just compensation which does not require any interference by this Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record. 9. Firstly, this Court would deal with the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellants/claimants as to whether the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal on the issue of contributory negligence can withstand judicial scrutiny. As per the pleadings in the claim application the deceased along with his friend Vikrant Singh was 4 returning from Raipur to Bemetara on motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 07 H 1073 as a pillion rider. It is pleaded that on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle, resulting in the death of the deceased. The learned Claims Tribunal framed issue No. 1 with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle whereas the issue No. 4(C) with regard to contributory negligence. While issue No. 1 was held to be proved whereas the issue No. 4(C) was also answered in the affirmative. The burden of proving issue No. 1 lay upon the appellants/claimants, whereas the burden of proving issue No. 4(C) relating to contributory negligence rested upon the respondents / driver, owner and the insurance company. 10. Smt. Anjani Banafar (AW-1) and Vinit Kumar Singh (AW-2) was examined on behalf of the appellants / claimants. Both of them are not eye witnesses that they have not stated anything. However, AW-1 has stated that his son died in the accident by rash and negligence of the offending vehicle. She has exhibited the true copy of the criminal paper of Crime No. 37 of 2023 registered at Police Station Aamanaka District Raipur, CG total 26 pages as Ex. P-1. From the perusal fo the criminal papers, it appears that the FIR was lodged against the driver of the offending vehicle. After completion of investigation a charge-sheet under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First class, Raipur District Raipur, CG. 11. From the record, it is evident that the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider was being driven by Vikrant Singh. Upon examining the driving licence of the motorcycle rider, the learned Claims Tribunal observed that the licence was valid for the period from 04.05.2023 to 03.05.2033. Since the accident had occurred on 18.01.2023, the Tribunal held that, on the date of the accident, Vikrant 5 Singh did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. The learned Claims Tribunal further observed that the appellants/claimants had failed to produce any documentary evidence or cogent oral evidence to establish that Vikrant Singh was duly authorized and competent to drive the motorcycle. On that basis, the Tribunal concluded that Vikrant Singh was also negligent. As the accident involved two vehicles, the Tribunal treated the case as one of contributory negligence and held that the appellants/claimants were entitled to only 50% amount of compensation. As stated above, the burden of proving Issue No. 4(C) was upon the respondents. However, for reasons best known to them, they neither examined any witness nor produced the driver of the offending vehicle to establish that the driver of the motorcycle had also contributed to the occurrence of the accident. It is well settled that proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation are summary in nature. The strict rules of evidence are not required to be applied in proving every fact. The Claims Tribunal is required to determine the issue on the touchstone of the preponderance of probabilities to ascertain whether the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle stands established. The claimants cannot be expected to prove negligence in the same manner as is required in a criminal trial. In the present case, Issue No. 1 regarding the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle had already been decided in favour of the claimants. The learned Claims Tribunal recorded a finding of contributory negligence solely on the ground that the driver of the motorcycle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident and, on that basis, deducted 50% amount of the compensation. The finding so recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal cannot be sustained for more than one reason. Firstly, the deceased was not driving the motorcycle; he was merely travelling as a pillion rider. Therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased had, in any manner, 6 contributed to the occurrence of the accident. Secondly, the learned Claims Tribunal erroneously treated the case as one of contributory negligence, whereas, at the highest, the facts of the case could have attracted the principle of composite negligence. The contributory negligence has been attributed in cases where the accident involved two motor vehicles, one of which was being driven by the deceased or the claimant, who sustained injuries in the accident. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan & Ors., (2008) 3 SCC 748, has drawn a clear distinction between contributory negligence and composite negligence, and held in paragraphs 6 & 7 as under:- "6. 'Composite negligence' refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrongdoers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrongdoers. In such a case, each wrongdoer is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrongdoer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrongdoer separately. On the other hand, where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence on the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stand reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence." "7. Therefore, when two vehicles are involved in an 7 accident, and one of the drivers claims compensation from the other driver alleging negligence, and the other driver denies negligence or claims that the injured claimant himself was negligent, then it becomes necessary to consider whether the injured claimant was negligent and, if so, whether he was solely or partly responsible for the accident and the extent of his responsibility, that is his contributory negligence. Therefore, where the injured is himself partly liable, the principle of composite negligence will not apply nor can there be an automatic inference that the negligence was 50:50. The Tribunal ought to have examined the extent of contributory negligence..." 12. The principal reason assigned by the Tribunal for recording such a finding was that the driver of the motorcycle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident. This finding cannot sustain in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh and ors., (2008) 12 SCC 436 in which it has been held in paragraph 9 as below - “9. If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was the driver of the mini-truck which was being driven rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any licence but no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two- wheeler rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently which contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how, only because he was not having a licence, he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence.” Thus, the finding of the learned Claims Tribunal on the issue of contributory negligence cannot withstand the scrutiny of this Court. Even 8 otherwise, the respondents failed to adduce any evidence to discharge the burden of proving Issue No. 4(C). Consequently, the finding with regard to contributory negligence is unsustainable in law and is hereby set aside. 13. This led to know the second point of determination with regard award of just compensation. The deceased was working as Assistant Grade-III in the municipalities, Bemetara. According to AW-2 his basic pay was Rs. 19500/- and adding the allowances his gross salary was Rs. 27166/- he has exhibited the salary slip of the deceased vide Ex.P-11. The learned Tribunal while assessing the compensation found that the brother of the deceased was given compassionate appointment thus the appellants / claimants are not entitled to any future prospect. Denying the future prospect by the learned claims Tribunal on account of compassionate appointment cannot sustain in the eye of law. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vimal Kanwar and Ors. Vs. Kishore Dan and Ors. Reported in (2013) 7 SCC 476 in paras 20 & 21 held thus-: “20. The second issue is “whether the salary receivable by the claimant on compassionate appointment comes within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as “Pecuniary Advantage” liable for deduction.” 21. “Compassionate appointment” can be one of the conditions of service of an employee, if a scheme to that effect is framed by the employer. In case, the employee dies in harness i.e. while in service leaving behind the dependents, one of the dependents may request for compassionate appointment to maintain the family of the deceased employee dies in harness. This cannot be stated to be an advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one’s death and have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned on account of accidental death. Compassionate appointment may have nexus with the death of an employee while in service but it is not necessary that it should have a 9 correlation with the accidental death. An employee dies in harness even in normal course, due to illness and to maintain the family of the deceased one of the dependents may be entitled for compassionate appointment but that cannot be termed as “Pecuniary Advantage” that comes under the periphery of Motor Vehicles Act and any amount received on such appointment is not liable for deduction for determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.” 15. Thus, in light of the settled legal position, the learned Claims Tribunal erred in holding that the appellants/claimants were not entitled to addition towards future prospects merely because appellant No. 2 had been granted compassionate appointment. From the evidence available on record, it is evident that the deceased was working as an Assistant Grade- III and was a salaried employee. Ex. P-12C is the appointment order of the deceased dated 30.07.2017, which shows that he himself had been appointed on compassionate grounds. Ex. P-11 is the salary slip of the deceased, according to which his basic salary was Rs. 19,500/-. After adding dearness allowance, house rent allowance, computer allowance and other admissible allowances, his gross monthly salary was Rs. 27,166/-. Ex. P-3 the High School Certificate-cum-Mark Sheet, records the deceased's date of birth as 03.03.1998. Since the accident occurred on 18.01.2023, the deceased was above 24 years but below 25 years of age on the date of the accident. Accordingly, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others VS. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018) 18 SCC 130, this Court proceeds to recompute the compensation in the following manner:- 10 S. No. Description Amount 1. Monthly income 27,166/- 2. Total Yearly Income (27166x12) 3,25,992/- 3. 50% future prospect 1,62,996/- 4. Income after future prospect 4,88,988/- 5. Income Tax Deduction 11,949.4/- (12,000/-) round figure 12,000/- 6. Total income after deduction of income tax 4,76,988/- 7. 1/2 Deduction 2,38,494/- 8. Loss of dependency 18x238494 42,92,892/- 9. Loss of estate 16,500/- 10. Funeral expenses 16,500/- 11. Filial Consortium to appellant No. 1 40,000/- Total 43,65,892/- 16. Since learned Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs. 19,90,952/-, the enhanced amount which he now is entitled to get comes to Rs. 23,74,940/-. Order accordingly. 17. The amount of compensation shall be paid by the insurance company / respondent No. 3 within a period of 60 days with 6% interest, from the date of appeal i.e. 08.01.2024. 18. After deposit Rs. 50,000/- shall be disbursed to appellant No. 2; Rs. 1,00,000/- shall be disbursed to appellant No. 3 and Rs. 20,00,000/- of four different fixed deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- (five lacs) each shall be invested in a nationalized bank for a period of three years in the name of appellant No. 1. Remaining amount shall be paid to appellant No. 1 through bank transaction/account payee cheque. 19. Appeal thus partly allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan