HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT (Claimant) Misc. Appeal (Q No.825 of 2008 Bisahuram Gaharwal Versus RESPONDENTS Ajay Sahu and others. c]€) AWARD < For consideration ^ -9-2011 Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge Hon'ble Shri Justice Raieev Gupta 3 O^^Q^-^— Sd/- Chief Justice ^ "'^.- Post for pronouncement of Award: l z--9-2011 Sd/- N.K-Agarwal Judge ..^T-^CN. /'.^\. ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR MI8C. APPEAL (Q No. 825 of 2008 APPELLANT (Claimantj ^ RESPONDENTS (NON APPLICANTS| ^l BisahLiram Gahanval, Age - 55 Years. S/o Late Shri Ramchandra Gaharwal, By Caste - Satnami, By Profession - Supervisor in Co- operative Bank & agricultLire, R/o ViUage - Tumgaon, Tahsil & Distt: Mahasamiind (C.G.) Versus 1. Ajay Sahu, Age - 19 yrs, S/0 Akalha @ Bakalha Sahu, By Caste-TeU, R/0 : Vidhut Colony, B.T.I. Road, Mahasamund, Tahsil & Distt.: - Mahasamund (C.G.) (Driver of Motor Cycle CT-100 No. C.G. 06/B/764®) 2. Akalha @ Bakatha Sahu, S/o Late Paiichm'am Saliu, By Caste-Teli, R/o Vidhut Colony, B.T.I. Road, Mahasamund, TahsU & Distt. Mahasamud (C.G.) (Owner of Mofcor Cycle CT-100 No. C,Cr. 06/B/7648 3. Bajaj Allianz General Insuraiice Com. Ltd. Branch Officer Shivmohan Bhavan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri, Raipur, TahsU 8s Distt. Raipur (Eas. Compsmy of Motor Cycle CT-100 Ho, C.G. 06/B/7648) APPBAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLBS ACT Coram; Hon. Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. 85 Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J PRESENT: Shri J.A.Lohani, counsel for fhe appellant. Shri Rakesh Pandey, counsel for respondent No.3 ^^.^ ^•^^.^ .^ / /' !': '^ 1 :1 t ^' J/ .^ ^ AWARD (Passed on ^-2^9-201 1) Per N.K. Affeu-wal, J. Being a^rieved and dissatisfied witli the ainount. of compensation awarded by the Chief Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasamiind (for short <the Tribunal') in claim case No.37/2007 vide award dated 05.04.2008, the instant appeal has been preferred by fhe appellant./claimant for enhancement, 2. As against compensation of Rs. 10,70,000/- claimed by the claimant. - Bisahuram Gaharwal by filing claun application 166 of tlie Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Acf) for fhe injuries sustained by hmi in the accident on 14.10.2006, the leamed Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.1,10,837/- along wifh interest @ 6% per annum from fhe -date ofapplication till its actual payment. 3. The leamed Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held: fhe accident had occurred due to collision betvveen Bajaj motor cycle CT 100 bearing registoration No. C.G. 06 B/7648 bemg driven by respondent No.l and Hero Honda motor cycle bearing registration No.C.G. 04 A/8509; respondent No.l responsible for accident to the extent of 50%: appellant Bisahuram Gaharwal equally contributed to the cause of negligence to the extent of 50%; respondent No.3 ^ ~ Bajgg Alliaiiz General tnsurance Company Limited liable for payment of compensation as respondent No.3 could not establish violation of policy conditions; assessed compensation of Rs.2,21,675/- aiid after deducting 50% towards contributory negligence of ftie appellant, awarded a suni of Rs.1^10^837/- as compensation to the appellant/claimant along wifh ititerest at 6% per annum from the date of claim application till its actual payment holding respondentsjotntiy and severaUy liable for its payment. 4. Sliri J.A. Lohani, leamed counsel appearmg for fhe appellants would submit: the learned Tribunal has fallen m error in holding the appellant responsible for accident to the extent of 50% and in reducmg fhe amount of compensation accordingly, 5. On the other hand, Shri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 supported fhe award and submitted ftiat in the facts and ctrci.unstances of the case, the leamed Tribunal has rightfy held the appeUant equally responsible for the accident; the leamed Tribunal, by taking liberal view, has rightiy awarded amount of conipensation which does not caU for aiiy interference. 6. We have heard leamed counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the Tribunal including the award impugned. 4 ^ \1^ 7. The core question involved ui the case for decision maktng is whetlier learned Tribi.uial has fallen in error in holding fhe deceased as responsible to the cause ofaccident to the extent of 50% and fhereby deducting 50% aaiount towards contributory negligence ofthe appellmit. 8. The appeUaiit/claimant ~ Bisahurain (A,W.l) has admitted in his statement para - 8 that criminal trial under section 279 and 238 of the LP.C. is pending against hh'n on the report of respondent No. 1 for the same accident. As per para - 1 of his statement^ he was coming from Tumgaon to Mahasamund. Near Civil Court he tumed and at this moment was dashed by the offending motor cycle being driven by respondent No. 1, It was also admitted by him that his motor cycle was not insured on the date of accident. As per para - 1 of the statement of Purushottmn Giri (A.W.2), Peon of C/o-operative Bank examined by the appellant, neai' Civil Court the appellant tumed and was dashed by fhe offending vehicle being driven by respondent No. 1. 9. On the ofher hand, respondent No. 1, in his statement in para - 1, has stated, appeUant was coming towards Baronda square by driving Hero Honda motor cycle rashly and negUgently and dashed his motor cycle, as a result of which, respondent No.l sustained injuries. He lodged fhe report before the City Kotwali, Mahasamund. ^" ,^f .y''^^ "^' ^ ^ ^\ m^^ '^ ^ .^' ./ ^^-r" ,^ ^o INN^ 10. Thus, it is crystal clear, police station Mahasamund having found fhe appeUant as weU as respondent No. 1 responsible for accident^ registered criminal case against both and crimuial ti-ial is also pending against them. 11. Fui'fher, tih.e ofiending motor cycle was running on fhe main road, and therefore, the appeUant driving a motor cycle wants to tum to approach aad enter fhe side road, is required to take care of any other vehicle coming or runntng on the maiii road, It appears, appellant took sudden tuni and that led to the accident, It is equally true that whenever a person drives a vehicle on the main road, he is also required to see persons or vehicles turning towards side road. Thus, it appears that the appellant was negligent as he took sudden tLim without followuig traffic rules and witliout caring about offending motor cycle approaching on fhe spot and the offending motor cycle driver was also negligent m not takmg care ofvehicle tziming towards side road. 12. In view of above, the approach of the Tribunal in holding both the motor cycle drivers equally responsible for cause of accident cannot be found fault with and ttie leamed Tribunal has not erred in deducting 50% of amount of compensation towards contributory negUgence of the appellant. In this view of the matter, the contention raised by Sliri J.A.Lohani that the leamed Tribunal has erred in ;.^-^.'...^-x /^ ^ ^ 'i ' \ " %,^^ „• ^ '\.;-:€^ |N^ holdiug tiie appellaLiit responsible to the cause of accident to the extent of 50% and thereby reducmg the amouiit of compensation is devoid of merit. 13. Now, we shall examine fhe sufiiciency or ofhenvise of the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 14. The learned Tribunal has assessed Rs.1,91,675/- towards inedical expeuses, Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance aiid other heads and thus has awarded Rs.2,21,675/- as compensation. After deducting 50% of it towards contributoiy negligence of the appellant has awarded Rs.1,10,837/- as compensation to the appellant/claimant. 15. The doctor exammed by the appellaiit was not treating doctor. Earlier he stated, due to fractm'e in tibia and fibula in fhe left leg, tlie appellant sustained 60% disability of the whole body. Later on, he admitted that his earMer statement was not correct and the disability was of tlie left leg only. 16. It is not the case of the appeUant that due to above injmy he lost his job. He is still working with the Bank as was working prior to the accident. 17. The compensation of Rs.2,21,675/- assessed by the Tribunal, when examined in the context of above broad features of fhe case and in the light of decision rendered by r'.^ ^^"\ ^•a the Supreme Court in the case of Rc^ Kufnar vs. AJay Kumar cm.d cmiother, (2011) 1 SCC 343, in our opinion, cannot be termed as inadequate, 18. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeal fails and is dismissed. 19, No order as to costs* Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge