w“ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA. No. 128/2004 Sushila Bai and others e APPELLANTS Versus RESPONDENTS D€vendra Tiwari and others ORDER t For consideratgi1 w -6~201 1 Sd/— N.K. Agrawal Judge 7 }o -6—20 1 1 Hon’ble Shri Raieev Gupta, C.J. N _J WTVK Chiei Jus‘ice Post for:2\ -6-20 1 1 Sd/- N.K. Agrawa Judge . g8 /L " l Per N.K. Agarwal, J l. This is claimant’s appeal seeking enhancement 1p the amount of compensation awarded by the Nth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg vide its award dated ORDER (a: -06-201 1) 10-1—2003 passed in Claim Case No. 81/2001. On an application filed under Section 166 of the Motor a Veftiéles Act,1988 preferred by the claimants/appellants claiming Rs. 51,28,208/~ as compensation for the death of Mahesh Chandra Sengar in the accident dated 17—5—200 l by Fiat Uno car bearing registration No. MP 23 LA/ 1709, learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 594,428]— along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till its payment against the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led held the accident took place due to collision of oifending vehicle Fiat Uno car and motor cycle bearing registration No. MP—24/ED-2745 being driven by the deceased Mahesh Chandra Sengar at the time of accident in which deceased was also liable to the cause of accident to the extent of 40%; offending car was insured with the respondent No.3 at the time of accident and as the respondent No.3 /Oriental Insurance Company could not establish breach of policy conditions is liable to pay compensation to the claimants jointly and severely along with driver and owner of the offending vehicle; taking into consideration entire salary of q/p‘ the deceased as Claimed and looking to the age of the deceased as 49 years, by applying multiplier of 12 the amount of compensation has been assessed as Rs. 19,74,88O/a After deducting 40% of it towards the contribution of the deceased in the cause of accident iawarded 5,84,928/- in favour of the claimants along with 1 interest V at the rate of 12% from the date of application till ,its payment against the driver, owner and insurer of the offending car. Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel for the appellants would submit, learned Tribunal has grossly erred in holding the deceased contributed to the cause of accident to the extent of 40%. V t . On the other hand, Shri Shaiiendra Shanna, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Shri Varunendra Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 would support the award and would submit, in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Tribunal has rightly held the deceased contributed to the cause of accident to the extent of 40%. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal.‘ The core question involved in the case for decision making is whether learned Tribunal has fallen in error in holding the deceased as responsible to the cause of‘accident to the extent of 40% and thereby deducting 40% amount of » O compensation towards contributoxy negligence of \the deceased. A's per para 5 of the statement of A.W. 2 Ashok Kumar examined by appellants/claimants when the accident t occurred, Fiat Uno car was running on Raipur-Bhjlai Main Road and the deceased was turning to his right from main road to the side road where hisvoffice was situated. u; As per Rule 9 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, the driver of a motor vehicle shall, on entering road intersection at which tramc is not being regulated, if the road entered is a main road desiglated as such gve way to the vehicle proceeding along that road and in any other case give way to all traific approaching the intersection on his right hand. As per Rule 13(c) when a driver of a motorcycle is about to turn to the right or to drive to the right hand side of the road in order to pass another vehicle or for any other purpose, a driver shall extend his right arm in a horizontal position outside of and to'the right of his vehicle with the palm of the hand turned to the front. There is no evidence in the record showing the deceased after following the trafiic rules turned to his right .x side. The oifending car was running on the main road and therefore the deceased, driving a motorcycle wants to turn towards his right side to approach and enter the side road, is ‘requirad to take care of any other vehicle coming or q6\ running on the main road. It appears, deceased took a sudden turn and that led to the accident It is equally true that whenever a car. driver drives a vehicle on the main road, he is also required to see persons or vehicle turning to his right side. Thus it appears that the deceased was negligent to} the extent that he took a sudden turn without following tranic rules and without caring about on‘ending car approaching V . on the spot and the car driver was also negligent in not taking care of the vehicle turning to its right side. Thus in the opinion of this Court, both the persons i.e. deceased as well as driver of the car are responsible and contributed to the accident and thus learned Tribunal has not erred in assessing the amount of responsible and contributed to the cause of accident to the extent of 40%. E compensation holding deceased In View of above, in the considered opinion of Court, learned Tribunal has not erred in holding the deceased responsible and contributed to the cause of accident to the extent of 40% and thereby reducing the compensation to the above extent and contention raised by Shri Dhurandhar is devoid cf merit. 12. No other point has been raised. 13. is dismissed. No order as to costs. . For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeal fails and L _.%,r/ sd/_ i _ Rg , ,; .> q. i SdF Chief Jusuce Judge y . 1 ‘ " ‘ I, ' ' Nix. AgYawa ’