Partly allowed

Santosh Kumar v. State of C.G and Another

Chhattisgarh HC3 Apr 2013MAC/961/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The Court set aside the Tribunal's finding of 50% contributory negligence on the appellant, as evidence showed the jeep driver was solely responsible. The compensation was enhanced to the full quantified amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal's finding on contributory negligence is set aside. The claimant is entitled to the full compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

Santosh Kumar Vs State of C.G and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2013)

¶1

0^-5/:^

¶2

BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.)

¶3

M.A.1C.) N0. ^ti 12008

¶4

APPELLANT Santosh Kumar son of Pran CLAIMANT Bandhu Sidar, aged , about <3^ years, occupation - Coriimission Agent of building materials (Sahd, ^^^, l- Bricks and Sraall stones) R/o. li\s^ Sonumuda, Dewarpara, Wc^rd No.27, Tahsil and Distt. Raigarh ^ft-i^s (C.G) VERSUS

¶5

RESPONDENT 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the N.A. N0.1 District Magistrate, Raigarh (Cg.>) RESPONDENT Nooratrajn Sidar, S/o. Bishikeshan f.A.NO. 2 .^vA&'"7 Sidar, occupation Service (Driver) ^> Office of Department of Agriculture, A<<%dg Collectorate,——,—Raigarhs~"^^(CG) .^0^'^^ <>?..MfSCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE ^^ MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 i<&:

HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶11

S.A. (C) No. 961 OF 2008

Santosh Kumar

Ciaimant

RESPONDENTS

StaSe of Chhattisgarh and another.

¶16

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHiCLEACT.1988

¶17

(SB: Hon'bie Mr. N.K. Aaarwai. J.)

¶18

Present : Mr. A.N. Bhakta, counsei for the appellant. Mr. Neeraj Pradhan, PL forthe State/respondent No.1.

¶19

AWARD (03.04.2013)

¶20

This is claimant's appeat seeking enhancement of

¶21

compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (for short 'the Tribunai) passed in Claim Case No. 19/07 vide its award dated 05.05.2008.

¶22

As against the compensation of Rs.43,98,188/- claimed by appeilant/claimant by fiiing c!aim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') for the injuries sustalned by him in the motor accident on 26.12.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 50.000/- to the claimant along with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of fiiing of claim petition tili jts actual payment.

¶23

¶24

. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence ted, held; the accident had occurred due to coilusion between Motorcycle 'bearing registration No. CG-13 E 4495 being driven by appeilant an8 jeep-^bearjng registration No. CG-02/1566 owned by respondent No.1/State~and being driven by respondent No. 2-

¶25

/•r^-am%-,^"•—'""'"•^Wi'E,.
f €^ 'l
M ^i^^^.. i
^?^ ^'•''fTwf:':~ ^'y
^-...^:.::--^

¶26

respondent No.l./State and being driven by respondent No. 2- Nooratram Sidar; appelianVclaimant sustained multipie injuries in the said accident; both the persons i.e. claimant snd respondent No. 2 equal.iy contributed to the cause of accident; assessed the amount of compensation as Rs.1,00,000/-; deducted 50% of it towards' contributory- negllgence of the appellant; and awarded Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the appeliant/ciaimant along with interest @ 6% per annum from the dafe of filing of claim petition tiil its actuat payment.

¶27

Shri A.N.. Bhakta, learned counsel appearing for the appeilant would submit: the learned Tribunal has erred in holding appeliant/claimant also contributed to the cause of accident to the extent of 50% and in deducting 50% of ths amount of compensation towards his contributory negligence.

¶28

On the other hand, Shri Neeraj Pradhan, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 would submit: as three persons were sitiing on the motorcycle, the Tribunal has rightly he!d both the drivers equally contributed to the cause of accldent and rightiy deducted 50% of the amount of compensation towards contributory negligence of the appellant/claimant and the same deserves to be upheld.

¶29

! have heard learned counse! for the parties and perused the material available on record including impugned award.

¶30

.;\ ^s,'^\

¶31

As per the crimina! case papers fited in the case,respondent ,NQ. 2 i.e. driver of Jeep was soleiy responsible for the accident. The spot map (Ex.P-4), which is an important piece of evidence,

¶32

¶33

would atso reveal driver of the jeep dashed the motorcycle being driven by cSafmant by coming towards his right side i.e. by driving the jeep on wrong side. Respondent No. 2 i.e. driver of the jeep was aiso not examined by respondent No-1/State.

¶34

The Tribunai, ignoring the above material facts, had held: the appellant guiity of contributory negligence to the extent of 50%, whtoh in my opinion, is not sustainable in law, inasmuch as, as per evidence avaiiable on record, it is the respondent No. 2, who was solely responsible for the cause of accident.

¶35

For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeal is allowed in part. The finding of contributory negligence of the appellant/claimant recorded by the Tribunal is set aside. The appeliant is entitled for the entire amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation in place of Rs.50,000/- awarded by theTribunal,

¶36

The enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of ctaim application titl its actual payment. The award is modified to the above extent.

¶37

Rest ofthe conditions ofthe award shalt remainintact.

¶38

No order as to costs.

¶39

Sd/N.K.Agarwal

¶40

_Qi-.

¶41

X
:.

Santosh Kumar v. State of C.G and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar v. State of C.G and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ratu Ram @ Rajkumar Vs Anil Das Panika and Ors.

M/s Mahaveer Construction Company Vs Naresh Kumar and Ors.

Abdul Rafiq Vs Raju Yadav and Others

Smt. Bimla Bai and Ors. Vs Ramadhar and Ors.

Smt. Jageshwari Bai and Ors. Vs Gyan Singh @ Jaanu Singh Gond and Ors.

Smt.sakun Bai And Ors. Vs Rajesh Vishwakarma And Anr.