1 2026:CGHC:17818 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 669 of 2020 1 - New India Insurance (Correct Name As Assurance) Company Limited , Through Division Office - 8, Second Floor Phase - 1, Jeewan Bima Marg, Pandri, Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh.(Insurer) .. (Non Applicant No. 3), --- Appellant (s) versus 1 - Patiram Sahu S/o Mayaram Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Koliyari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Jogeshwari Sahu W/o Patiram Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Koliyari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 3 - Pradeep Sahu S/o Patiram Sahu Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Koliyari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh....(Claimants), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 4 - Vikram Singh Farme S/o Surendra Singh Farme R/o Semrapara, Bhanupratappur, District Kanker Chhattisgarh...(Driver Of Vehicle) (Non Applicant No. 01), District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 5 - Omprakash Chauhan S/o Late Ramuram Chauhan R/o Dalli Road, KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.04.21 19:42:19 +0530 2 Bhanupratappur , District Kanker Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle) (Non Applicant No. 02), District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal and Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocates. MAC No. 844 of 2020 1 - Patiram Sahu S/o Mayaram Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Koliyari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Jogeshwari Sahu W/o Patiram Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Koliyari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 3 - Pradeep Sahu S/o Patiram Sahu Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Koliyari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant (s) Versus 1 - Vikram Singh Farme S/o Surendra Singh Farme R/o Semrapara, Bhanupratappur, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh, (Driver) 2 - Omprakash Chouhan S/o Late Ramuram Chouhan R/o Dalli Road, Bhanupratappur, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh, (Owner), District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 3 - Divisional Manager New India Insurance Company Limited, Division Office 8, Second Floor, Phase -1, Jeevan Beema Marg Pandari, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal and Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocates. 3 (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 20/04/2026 1. Since the aforesaid Appeals arise out of same accident, they are clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. MAC No.669/2020 has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act, 1988’) calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the award dated 23.12.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.152/2018, by which liability to pay compensation of Rs.3,55,200/- has been fastened on the Insurance Company whereas, MAC No.844/2020 has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation as also to set aside the finding of contributory negligence. 3. Mrs. Swati Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the offending vehicle did not have effective fitness certificate and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation and the principle of pay and recovery would apply. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the issue regarding contributory 4 negligence is not established, as there is no pleading and no evidence was led by the Insurance Company. Therefore, Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company may be dismissed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may be enhanced suitably. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. The Insurance Company has clearly taken a specific plea in its written statement at para-2 that the offending vehicle was being plied without fitness certificate and permit. The Insurance Company has examined two witnesses namely, Vishal Rathod (NAW-3), Administrative Officer and Kamlesh Kumar (NAW-2). Both the witnesses have stated that the offending vehicle did not have valid permit and fitness certificate at the time of accident. 7. In this regard, the High Court of Kerala in the matter of Pareed Pillai, S/o Abdulkhader and Ors vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.1 has emphasized the importance and necessity to have a valid Fitness Certificate to the transport vehicles at all times and held at para-17 thus:- “17.The stipulations under the above provisions clearly substantiate the importance and necessity to have a valid Fitness Certificate to the transport vehicle at all times. The above prescription converges on the point that Certificate of Registration, existence of valid Permit and availability of Fitness Certificate, all throughout, 1 2019 ACJ 16 5 are closely interlinked in the case of a transport vehicle and one requirement cannot be segregated from the other. The transport vehicle should be completely fit and road worthy, to be plied on the road, which otherwise may cause threat to the lives and limbs of passengers and the general public, apart from damage to property. Only if the transport vehicle is having valid Fitness Certificate, would the necessary Permit be issued in terms of Section 66 of the Act and by virtue of the mandate under Section 56 of the Act, no transport vehicle without Fitness Certificate will be deemed as a validly registered vehicle for the purpose of Section 39 of the Act, which stipulates that nobody shall drive or cause the motor vehicle to be driven without valid registration in public place or such other place, as the case may be. These requirements are quite 'fundamental' in nature; unlike a case where a transport vehicle carrying more passengers than the permitted capacity or a goods carriage carrying excess quantity of goods than the permitted extent or a case where a transport vehicle was plying through a deviated route than the one shown in the route permit which instances could rather be branded as 'technical violations'. In other words, when a transport vehicle is not having a Fitness Certificate, it will be deemed as having no Certificate of Registration and when such vehicle is not having Permit or Fitness Certificate, nobody can drive such vehicle and no owner can permit the use of any such vehicle compromising with the lives, limbs, properties of the passengers/general public. Obviously, since the safety of passengers and general public was of serious concern and consideration for the law makers, appropriate and adequate measures were taken by incorporating relevant provisions in the Statute, also pointing out the circumstances which would constitute offence; providing adequate penalty. This being the position, such lapse, if any, can only be regarded as a fundamental breach and not a technical breach and any interpretation to the contrary, will only negate the intention of the law makers.” 8. In the instant case, at the time of accident, the offending vehicle did not have valid permit and fitness certificate. Therefore, the 6 award passed against the Insurance Company deserves to be modified and principle of pay and recover would apply, in the light of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh and Another vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others2 as also by the Kerala High Court in the matter of Pareed Pillai (Supra). 9. As far as the question of contributory negligence is concerned, 50% amount is to be deducted. However, a careful perusal of the written statement filed by the Insurance Company would show that no plea was taken that the deceased was also contributory negligent while driving the offending vehicle and no evidence has been led on behalf of the Insurance Company to this effect though two witnesses have been examined by it. 10. In this regard, it is well settled that plea of contributory negligence alone is not sufficient and it must be supported by evidence. In the matter of Prabhavati and Others Vs. Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan, Transport Corporation3, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have relied upon the decision of Jiju Kuruvila vs. Kunjujamma Mohan4 and held that in the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence on record, it cannot be assumed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. 2 (2018) 7 SCC 558 3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 455 4 (2013) 9 SCC 166 7 11. Further following the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Kiran vs. Sajjan Singh5, their Lordships have held that on an allegation simpliciter, it cannot be presumed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both vehicles. 12. In the case at hand, no pleading has been raised and no evidence has been led with regard to contributory negligence. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal in this regard deserves to be and is hereby set aside. 13. In the instant case, the Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at ₹4,500/- whereas the income should have been assessed at Rs.8,360/- per month. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that the present is a death case, it would be appropriate to enhance award amount. As such, the claimants will be entitled for the following compensation as computed by this Court:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Dependency Rs.4500 + 40% (future prospects) = Rs.6,300 – ½ (personal expenses) = Rs.3150 x 12 = 37,800 x 18 (multiplier) = Rs. 6,80,400/- Rs.8,360 + 40% = Rs.11,704 – ½ = Rs.5,852 x 12 = Rs.70,224 x 18 (multiplier) = Rs.12,64,032/- 5 (2015) 1 SCC 539 8 2. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.16,500/- 3. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Rs.16,500/- 4. Loss of consortium Not awarded Rs.44,000 x 3 = Rs.1,32,000/- Total Rs.7,10,400/- Rs.14,29,032 6. Contributory negligence (-) Rs.3,55,200/- (50% contributory negligence) Grand Total Rs.3,55,200/- Rs.7,14,516/- 14. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹3,55,200/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹14,29,032/-. Hence, after dividing the amount of ₹14,29,032/- towards contributory negligence, the claimants are held to be entitled to an additional amount of ₹7,14,516/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation within a period of three 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. 15. With the aforesaid modifications, both the Appeals are disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Barve