1 - Robnet Kujur, S/o. Late Plasideyush Kujur, Aged About 59 Years, R/o. Village v. 1 - Rajesh Kujur, S/o. Plashideyush Kujur, R/o. Village – Gholend, Tahsil & District
Case Details
1 ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.09.18 18:02:32 +0530 2025:CGHC:48037 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1379 of 2022 1 - Robnet Kujur, S/o. Late Plasideyush Kujur, Aged About 59 Years, R/o. Village – Gholend, Tahsil & District - Jahspur (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Liligrace Kujur, W/o. Robnet Kujur, Aged About 48 Years, R/o. Village – Gholend, Tahsil & District - Jahspur (C.G.) (Claimants) ... Appellants versus 1 - Rajesh Kujur, S/o. Plashideyush Kujur, R/o. Village – Gholend, Tahsil & District - Jahspur (C.G.)……. (Owner) 2 - TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, 4th Floor Gwalani Chamber Office No. T-8 Vyapar Vihar Rode, Near ICICI Bank, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pin Code 495001……..(Insurer) 3 - Emanvel Khalkho, S/o. Late Harduman Khalkho, Aged About 60 Years, Village - Raipath, Post - Gholend, Tahsil & District - Jashpur (C.G.) 2 4 - Prabhat Minj, S/o. Late Prakash Minj, Aged About 23 Years, R/o. Village - And Post - Bada Koranja, Tahsil & District - Jashpur (C.G.)………. (Driver) ... Respondents For Appellants For Respondent No.2
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.3 & 4 : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 18.09.2025 1. The claimants/appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 12.08.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur in Motor Accident Claim Case No.43/2020, by which the claim application of the claimants has been dismissed finding no merit. 2. Mr. Divyanand Patel, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/ claimants, would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that the deceased was 3 contributory negligent, but instead of quantifying the amount of compensation, the Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim application in toto, which is not permissible under the law. He would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of T.O.Anthony v. Karvarnan & Others1 and submits that the impugned award be set aside allowing the appeal of the appellants. 3. Ms. Harneet Kaur, learned counsel for the insurance company/ respondent No.2 & Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 & 4 would support the impugned judgment and submit that the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper, which do not call for any interference and the appeal of the claimants deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records minutely. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, in para 16 has clearly recorded a finding that deceased driver of the motorcycle Nishi Vishal Kujur and driver of Bolero Prabhat Minj both 1 (2008) 3 SCC 748 4 were negligent and, as such, deceased Nishi Vishal Kujur was also contributory negligent, but thereafter proceeded to dismiss the claim application. In this regard, the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of T.O. Anthony (supra) may be noticed herein in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed 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 wrong-doers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrong-doers. In such a case, each wrong-doer, 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 wrong- doer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrong-doer 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 of 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 stands reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence. 5 7. Therefore, when two vehicles are involved in an 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 as has been assumed in this case. The Tribunal ought to have examined the extent of contributory negligence of the appellant and thereby avoided confusion between composite negligence and contributory negligence. The High Court has failed to correct the said error. 6. Revering to the facts of the case in light of the principles of law laid down in T.O. Anthony (supra), since the deceased was held to be contributory negligent, therefore, the Claims Tribunal ought to have adjudicated to the extent of contributory negligence and thereafter could have quantified the amount of compensation, but could not have dismissed the claim application in toto. Therefore, the impugned award is partly set aside to the above extent and the matter is remitted back to the learned Claims Tribunal to adjudicate the 6 matter to the extent of contributory negligence and to quantify the compensation amount as per law expeditiously, as the accident occurred on 31.01.2020. The parties are at liberty to lead additional evidence, if they deem it appropriate and necessary. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein above. Ashok Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge