iS" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S!nate_Bench : Hon'ble Shri DJJip Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. Appellant Ciaimant Versus 1.A.(C;)No.1377/2007 Manoj Kumar Darpan S/o Sudershan Ram Darpan, aged about 27 years, by Caste-Kumhar, Resident of Viiiage Sarabkombo, Tahsii Bagicha, District Jashpur (C.G.) _Resp_ondents NoncClaJmant Vijay Prasad Gupta S/o indradeo Prasad Gupta, aged about 45 years, R/o Village Ghitkawaen, Thana Narayanpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) (Driver of the vehicle No.C.G.-15-B- 0631) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) (insurer of the Vshicle No.C.G .-15-8- 0631) iVlemorandum of Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicies Act. Present: Shri C. Jayant Rao, counse} for the appeiiant. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, counse! for respondent No.1. No one appears on behaif of respondent No.2. .ORAL ORDER (Passed on thls 29th day Qf July, 2008) Heard fjnaiiy. (2) The appeiiant Is aggrieved by an award dated 24-04-2007 passed by the IVIotor Accidents Claims Tribunai, Jashpur (sashenceforth "the Tribunai") In Ciaim Case No.50/2005 whereby assessing compensation at Rs.60,000/-, Rs.15,000/- was awarded to the appeliant/ciaimant against the respondents on the ground that the appelianVcialmant had contributed to the accident to the extent of 75%, . : • (3) Respondents did not prefer any appeal against the award 24-04-2007. . , ^!3S %.. "^ ""^f' "^sssasS^' — '2-- Ifc (4) The soie ground urged by iearned counsei for the appeiiant in this appeal for enhancement of compensation is that the mere fact that the appellanVclalmant was carrying two pliSlon riders on the motorcycie in vioiatlon of Section 128 of the Motor Vehicies Act, 1988 does not amount to contributory negligence on the part of the appellant/daimant. Reliance was piaced • on Devisingh versys Vikranisingh & Ors^ a declsion rendered by Fuli Sench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh (indore Bench) reported in AJ.R« Madhya Pradesh 18 v^herein it was he!d as un.der:- . "A Piain reading of Sectlon 128 of the Act quoted above wouid show that sub-section (1) casts a duty on the driver of a two wheeied motorcycie not to carry more than one person in additlon to himself on the motorcycie. Similarly, Ruie 123 of.the Ru!es quoted above mentions the safe-ty devices to be provided whlie manufacturing a motorcycle. .These provjsions obviously are safefr^ rneasures for the driver and piliion rider and breach of such safety measures may amount to "negiigence" but such negiigence wlli not amount to "contributory negiigence'3 on the part ofthe piiiion rider or "composite negiigence" cn the part of the drlver of the motorcycie uniess such negijgence was partlythe immediate cause of the accident or damage suffered by the piiijon rider as would be clear from the authoritles discussed above." However, even ifthis argument is to be accepted, the iearned counsei for the appellanVclaimant did not dispute that the appeliant/ciaimant was riding the motorcycie from the opposite direction and abruptiy came to the right side of the road i.e, cn the left side of the Marshal! Jeep. The Tribunal has, after appreciation of evidence, recorded a finding that the appejlant/dairnant had brought his motorcyde cn the wrong side of the road whlch resuited in the accident. In para 15, the Tribunal has also considered the evidence !ed by the respondent No.1 that the Marshall Jeep v^as not belng driven In a rash and negiigent rnanner. In this view of ^ the rnatter, 1 am oftl^e consldered opinlon that no ground for enh^ncernent of compensatlon a'warded bythe Tribunal Is made out. 3' \^ (5) In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit is djsmissed.^ Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Turnane