^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal (Q No. 1610 of2008 APPELLANT Claimant RESPONDENT Abhay Pratap Singh Versus Shobharam and others. AWARD For consideration 23 -9-2011 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajee^ Gupta 5 <^L^T^--_ Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge Post for pronouncement of Award: 2. C -9-2011 Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge ^^^^^ .^C"i~' '"s<?€> ^^- ' "'^ I 1 1 ^ ^r HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (Q No. 1610 of 2008 APPELLANT Claimant Abhay Pratap Singh, S/o Shri Raghunath Singh, aged about 33 years, Occupation Service (Range Officer), Ambuj Cement Foundation, Village Rawan, Tahsil Balodabazar, District Raipur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Shobharam, S/o Dukhwaram Sahu, aged about 26 years, R/o Village Rawan, Tahsil Balodabazar, District Raipur (C.G.) (Driver of Bus No. C.G. 04, D-8623) 2. Ramraiig Vaishnav, Sarvahitkarni, Higher Secondary School, Village Rawan, Tahsil Balodabazar, District Raipur (C.G.) (Owner of Bus No. C.G. 04, D-8623) 3. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Division V-7, Redcross Place, Kolkata 700001. (Insurer of Bus No. C.G. 04, D-8623) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Coram: Hon. Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. & Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J PRESENT: Shri M.K. Bhaduri, counsel for the appellant. Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, counsel for respondent No.3. AWARD (Passed on -35- -9-201 1) ^^ ^1-—^,.. ,-^fe....' "'^ wy% Per N.K. Agarwal, J. This is claimant/s appeal seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded by the 2nd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar, Dist. Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide its award dated 30.09.2008 in Claim Case No.20/2007. 2. As against compensation of Rs.86,95,000/- claimed by the claimant by filing claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 21.11.2006, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. 3. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held: the accident had occurred due to collision between the Minibus bearing registration No. C.G. 04-D/8623 being driven by respondent No.l and motor cycle bearing registration No.C.G. 04/CL-9978 being driven by the appellant himself; the appellant as well as respondent No.l equally contributed to the cause of accident; respondent No.3/the Oriental Insurance Company liable for payment of compensation as it could not establish violation of policy conditions; assessed the total compensation of Rs.80,000/-; deducted Rs.40,000/- ofit towards contributory negligence of ;ri'Nl;:;'.;i w^ the appellant and awarded Rs.40,000/- along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its actual payment. 4. Shri M.K.Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit: the Tribunal has erred in holding the appellant equally negligent for cause of accident and in reducing the amount of compensation to the extent of 50% and thus has fallen in error in awarding low amount of compensation. 5. On the other hand, Shri Sudhir Agrawal with Shri P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 - insurance company would supporf the impugned award and would submit: looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal rightly held the appellant responsible for the accident to the extent of 50% and the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation, needs no interference. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the Tribunal including the award impugned. 7. On the report of the appellant - Abhay Pratap Singh, a criminal case has been registered against the driver of Minibus in question. The motor cycle was hit by the Minibus < from behind. The Minibus being heavier vehicle than the motor cycle, respondent No.l was having greater responsibility to drive the vehicle cautiously to avoid any possibility of the accident. The Minibus driver was also required to see the persons approaching niain road. 8. When the finding of the^Tribunal regarding contributory negligence of the appellant as well as of Minibus driver to the extent of 50% - 50% is exainined in the light of above broad features, in our opinion, the Tribunal has certainly erred in holding the appellant guilty of negligence to the extent of 50%. 9. Nevertheless, ifwe examine the statement of Laxmikant (A.W.2) paragraph 13, it would be clear, the appellant suddenly brought his motor cycle on the main road without caring other vehicles coming from behind. Before approaching main road, it was the duty of the appellant to see the vehicles coniing on the road from behind. The same has not been done by the appellant. Therefore, although the appellant was not guilty of negligence to the extent of 50% but certainly contributed to the cause of accident to the extent of 20% and is entitled for compensation of Rs.80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal after deducting 20% of it towards his contributory negligence. 10. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is entitled for Rs.64,000/- in place of Rs.40,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant is also entitled for Rs.3000/- as interest component upon the enhanced amount of compensation ofRs.24,000/-. 11. The award is modified t6 the above extent. Rest of the conditions of the award shall remain intact. 12. Respondent No.3 - Oriental Insurance Company is granted three months time to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation in the concerned Claims Tribunal. 13. No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge