Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:43796 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 926 of 2022 Sudesh Sharma @ Khushbu Sharma S/o Shri Omprakash Sharma Aged About 22 Years R/o Ward No 37, Ganjpara Near Godha Dal Mill, Durg Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant/Claimant versus
Legal Reasoning
this Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Seema Pandey and Others1 has held as under :- “10. It is well settled that the Insurance Company taking a plea of contributory negligence on the part of the victim, must lead evidence with regard thereto and unless such evidence is led by the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company’s plea with regard to the contributory negligence cannot succeed. The Insurance Company must state specifically that there was some casual connection of the deceased with the damage suffered by him to hold that the conduct of the deceased amounted to contributory negligence. Similarly, there had to be some connection on the part of the deceased showing absence of reasonable care for his own safety which contributed to the damage.” 8. Thus, in absence of any evidence led by respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company) in order to prove the plea of contributory negligence, the Claims Tribunal has erred in holding that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant and the said finding is hereby set-aside. 1 2014 (1) CGLJ 270 (MAC No. 653/2012; decided on 08/11/2013) 9. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the 5 Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 85,000/- under medical expenses, Rs. 25,000/- under nutrition, conveyance and attendant’s expenses, Rs. 25,000/- under physical and mental pain and agony and Rs. 25,000/- under future difficulties and expenses and thereby, calculated Rs. 1,60,000/- as compensation, however, in the considered opinion of this Court, the said compensation is on the lower side and not just and proper considering that the appellant was aged about 22 years at the time of the accident and she has suffered fracture in chin and on account of injury on her left ear, her hearing sense has weakened, therefore, the medical expenses is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/-, nutrition and conveyance expenses is enhanced to Rs. 25,000/- and future expenses are also enhanced to Rs. 25,000/- making the total compensation from Rs. 1,60,000/- to Rs. 2,25,000/-. Respondent No. 3 is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal i.e. 04/10/2019 till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 6 10. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet
Arguments
1 - Mohit Verma S/o Shri Ghanaram Verma Aged About 20 Years R/o Arjun Nagar, Camp 01, Bhilai, P.S. Chhawani, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle No. Cg-07/AQ-3797) 2 - Ghanaram Verma R/o Arjun Nagar, Camp 01, Bhilai, P.S. Chhawani, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G. 07/AQ-3797) 3 - Branch Manager/divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Bhilai Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle No. 07/AQ-3797) ... Respondents For Appellant :Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 :Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate 2 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 28.08.2025 1. The appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter, “the Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 20/05/2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Durg, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 503/2019 whereby the Claims Tribunal has deducted 50% of the compensation amount on account of contributory negligence and awarded Rs. 80,000/- in favour of the appellant/claimant for the injuries suffered by him. 2. Brief facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that on 18/06/2018 at about 06:45 PM, appellant herein was driving her Activa along with her friend sitting as pillion rider and near Kosanala Toll Plaza at the service road, respondent No. 1, who was driving his Motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG 07/BB 8438 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed her Activa and caused the accident due to which appellant suffered grievous injuries on her head, chin and face. She was taken to Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital, Bhilai wherein he remained admitted till 23/06/2018. 3 3. Learned Claims Tribunal, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, held that on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 herein the accident occurred but also held that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant and proceeded award Rs. 80,000/- as compensation in favour of the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in favour of the claimants is on the lower side and moreover, though the plea of contributory negligence had been taken by respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company) but no evidence has been led to prove the same and as such, the Claims Tribunal has erred in holding that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant and therefore, the impugned award is liable to be enhanced. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 would support the impugned award and submit that the Claims Tribunal has rightly held that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant and as such, the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. 4 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 7. True it is that plea of contributory negligence has been expressly taken by respondent No. 3/Insurance Company but no evidence has been led in this regard to prove and establish the same. With regard to contributory negligence,