1 2026:CGHC:14542 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1076 of 2022 1 - Smt. Sohadra Bai Nirmalkar W/o Late Dhanesh Kumar Nirmalkar Aged About 42 Years R/o House No. 306, Shaheed Veer Narayan Nagar, Ward No. 28, Power House Khursipar, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Ritu Kumari Nirmalkar D/o Late Dhanesh Kumar Nirmalkar Aged About 22 Years R/o House No. 306, Shaheed Veer Narayan Nagar, Ward No. 28, Power House Khursipar, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Mayank Nirmalkar S/o Late Dhanesh Kumar Nirmalkar Aged About 19 Years R/o House No. 306, Shaheed Veer Narayan Nagar, Ward No. 28, Power House Khursipar, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sameer Nirmalkar S/o Late Dhanesh Kumar Nirmalkar Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sohadra Bai Nirmalkar, R/o House No. 306, Shaheed Veer Narayan Nagar, Ward No. 28, Power House Khursipar, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Sudama Singh S/o Shankar Singh Aged About 64 Years R/o Mathpara Birgaon, Near Daulat Kirana Store, Ward No. 27, Police Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2026.04.13 16:32:06 +0530 2 Station Urla, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Permanent Address - Ward No. 11, Pt. Sundar Lal Sharma, Near Shiv Mandir Birgaon, Post And Police Station Urla, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The O:ending Vehicle Truck No. C G - 04, J-7074), 2 - Harendra Kumar S/o Late Ram Pravesh Gupta Aged About 40 Years R/o Subhash Market, Near Prabhu Tent House, Ekta Nagar, Sector - 11, Bhilai,police Station Khursipar Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh , O>ce Address - Deepak Goods Transport, Sanyasipara, Khamtarai, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, (Owner Of The O:ending Vehicle Truck No. C G - 04, J-7074), 3 - National Insurance Company Through Manger, Kurud Business Centre, Opp. Lic O>ce, Main Road, Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, Branch O>ce Akash Ganga Supela, Post And Police Station Supela, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh, (Insurer Of The O:ending Vehicle Truck No. C G - 04, J-7074), ... Respondents For Appellants : Shri Satya Kumar Mandloi, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 27/03/2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the MV Act’) is Dled calling in question validity, correctness and judicial propriety of the award dated 5.7.2022 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short ‘Claims Tribunal’) in Case No.36 of 2020. 2. By the award impugned, learned Claims Tribunal has assessed compensation of Rs.14,87,500, however, deducted 50% of the compensation on account of contributory negligence and thus 3 awarded compensation of Rs.7,43,750 in favour of the appellants/claimants on account of death of Dhanesh Kumar Nirmalker in an accident that occurred on 31.8.2019. 3. A claim application under Section 166 of the MV Act was Dled by the appellants/claimants inter alia pleading that on the date of accident, i.e., 31.8.2019, the deceased along with two persons was riding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.CG 07 AU 9216 and was going to Supela from Durg. Near Garden at G.E. Road, Nehru Nagar, the o:ending vehicle, i.e. truck bearing registration No.CG 04 J 7074 was parked in the middle of the road in darkness without there being any indicator on. Neither any radium stick was used to suggest that the o:ending vehicle was parked in the middle of the road in darkness. As the o:ending vehicle could not be seen, the motorcycle, which was being driven by one Rajesh Soni, dashed to the o:ending vehicle resulting into death of the two persons, namely, Rajesh Soni and Dhanesh Kumar Nirmalker. As per further pleadings, deceased Dhanesh Kumar Nirmalker, who was a helper in Rajesh Travels, was earning Rs.10,000 per month. Thus, a total compensation of Rs.21,20,000 was claimed. 4. Respondents No.1 and 2 Dled their written statement and denied the averments of the claim application and submitted that exaggerated amount has been claimed. Their vehicle was not involved in the accident. They prayed for rejection of the claim application. 5. Respondent No.3/insurance company also denied the averments 4 of the claim application and submitted that exaggerated compensation is claimed. Three persons were travelling on the motorcycle. The accident occurred on account of negligence of the driver of the motorcycle and the insurance company also pleaded violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy of the o:ending vehicle. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal having framed issues decided the same. However, it found that the driver of the motorcycle was negligent to the tune of 50% and thus deducted 50% amount from the assessed compensation. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Dnding with regard to contributory negligence is bad in law. The deceased was not a driver of the motorcycle. Thus, no contributory negligence can be attributed upon him. He further submits that the amount of compensation is on lower side, which requires suitable enhancement. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company opposes the above submission and submits that from the evidence on record it is quite vivid that the driver of the motorcycle was negligent. The o:ending vehicle was parked with proper indicator on. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the o:ending vehicle. Just compensation has been awarded. The issue with regard to contributory negligence is based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5 9. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal with due care. 10. First question, which is to be determined by this Court, is as to whether the deduction of 50% amount from the assessed compensation can sustain. From the record, it is apparent that the deceased was a pillion rider on the motorcycle. He was not driving the o:ending vehicle nor the motorcycle. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Claims Tribunal fell in error in deducting 50% on account of contributory negligence contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan and others, (2008) 3 SCC 748. In the opinion of this Court, it is a case of composite negligence not contributory negligence. Thus, the Dnding with regard to contributory negligence is hereby set aside. This leads this Court to second question as to whether just compensation has been awarded or not. 11. As per pleadings of the appellants/claimants, the deceased was a helper in Rajesh Travels. According to the appellants/claimants, the deceased was earning Rs.10,000 per month. The Claims Tribunal found the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.9,000 and after adding 25% future prospects assessed his monthly income to Rs.11,250 and after deduction of 1/4 for his personal and living expenses and adding funeral expenses, loss of estate and consortium, assessed the above stated compensation. However, the Claims Tribunal failed to award any parental consortium to appellants No.2 to 4 in light of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General 6 Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130. Thus, this Court is inclined to award parental consortium of Rs.40,000 each, total Rs.1,20,000, to appellants No.2 to 4. As this Court has set aside the Dnding with regard to contributory negligence, the entire amount of compensation as assessed by the Claims Tribunal be paid by respondent No.3/insurance company in terms of the award. In addition to it, the insurance company shall also pay the parental consortium of Rs.1,20,000 with 6% simple interest from the date of Dling of the instant appeal till Dnal payment thereof. The insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court along with the interest within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On the deposit being made by the insurance company, the learned Claims Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders with regard to apportionment, investment and disbursement of the amount among the appellants/claimants. Rest of the impugned award shall remain intact. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modiDed to the extent shown above. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Gopal