Nagesh Thakur Vs Shivkumar Pal

1 - Nagesh Thakur S/o Hemshankar Thakur Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Bijetala, Police Station Ghumka, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, Presently R/o Village Shergarh, Police Station And Tahsil Khairgarh, District Khairgarh-Chhuikhadan - Gandai, Chhattisgarh.............(Claimant)

¶10

... Appellant

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - Shivkumar Pal S/o Jalipa Pal Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Alipur, Post Nisgar, Police Station Sareli, District Raibareli, Utter Pradesh Presently R/o Village Jewra Sirsa, Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg, Chhattisgarh............(Driver)

¶13

2 - Suryakant Sao Kedar Prasad Sao Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No. 19, Sirsa Khurd, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh...............(Owner)

¶14

3 - United India Insurance Company Limited Address - Micro Office, Paras Complex, Gurudwara Road Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh................(Insurer)

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

For Appellant : Mr. Ujjawal Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board

¶18

13.04.2026

¶19

1. Heard on I.A. No. 1 an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶20

1. Though opposed, on due consideration and for the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 9 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

¶21

1. Heard on admission.

¶22

1. Admitted.

¶23

1. Issue notice to the respondents.

¶24

2

¶25

1. Mr. Dubey accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 3. Since the liability to pay compensation lies upon the insurance company and at the request of Mr. Agrawal, issuance of notice to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is dispensed with.

¶26

1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

¶27

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “MV Act”) has been preferred by the appellant/claimant, being aggrieved by the award dated 25.02.2025 passed in Claim Case No. 55/2023 by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh–Chhuikhadan–Gandai (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”).

¶28

1. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs. 30,10,000/- the learned Tribunal assessed compensation at Rs. 2,78,117/-. However, after deducting 50% on account of alleged contributory negligence a sum of Rs. 1,39,060/- was awarded. As per the pleadings, the appellant/claimant sustained grievous injuries including permanent disability in an accident that occurred on 01.01.2023. It is further pleaded that the appellant along with two other persons was travelling towards his village Beejetala. On Mohandi–Jalbandha main road the offending vehicle (Tanker) No. CG-04-MP-7945 was parked in the middle of the road without any parking lights or indicators. The motorcycle on which the appellant was travelling as a pillion rider and which was being driven by one Mohit Nishad collided with the said tanker from behind resulting in injuries to the appellant. The appellant remained hospitalized for a considerable period and suffered fractures as well as permanent disability.

¶29

1. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 remained ex parte before the learned Tribunal. Respondent No. 3/Insurance company in its usual course, denied the averments made in the claim petition and pleaded that the appellant had also contributed to the accident due to his own negligence. It was further contended that the driver

¶30

3

¶31

of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, thereby violating the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

¶32

1. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed 7 issues and after appreciating the material available on record decided the same in favour of the appellant/claimant. However, while assessing compensation as stated above, the Tribunal deducted 50% on account of contributory negligence.

¶33

1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding regarding contributory negligence is erroneous in law and liable to be set aside. He further submits that the compensation awarded is on the lower side and deserves suitable enhancement.

¶34

1. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 supports the award and submits that three persons were travelling on the motorcycle. Although the appellant was a pillion rider, it was his duty to ensure that the vehicle was driven safely and cautiously. Therefore, the finding of contributory negligence is justified and the compensation awarded is fair warranting no interference.

¶35

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶36

1. This Court shall first deal with the issue of contributory negligence. Admittedly, the appellant was not driving the motorcycle that collided with the offending vehicle. Merely because three persons were travelling on the motorcycle does not by itself establish contributory negligence on the part of the appellant. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan and Others , (2008) 3 SCC 748 , the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on this aspect is unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside.

¶37

1. The next issue pertains to enhancement of compensation. Upon a meticulous examination of the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal assessed compensation under the following heads:

¶38

4

¶39

Hospital Expenses	Rs.9,917/-
Attendant Charges	Rs. 10,000/-
Special Diet	Rs. 12,000/-
Transportation expenses	Rs. 15,000/-
Loss of Future Earnings	Rs. 1,51,000/-
Loss of Income During treatment	Rs. 30,000/-
(10,00 X 3)
For Future Treatment	Rs. 20,000/-
Pain and Suffering	Rs. 30,000/-
Total:	Rs/ 2,78,117/-
Deduction of 50% amount due	Rs.1,39,060
to contributory negligence

¶40

1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation awarded is not just and reasonable.

¶41

1. Upon consideration of the record, this Court is of the opinion that an additional sum of Rs. 25,000/- would be appropriate to render the compensation just and reasonable. Accordingly, the appellant/claimant shall be entitled to the aforesaid enhanced amount in addition to the compensation already assessed. The respondent No. 3 shall pay the said amount to the appellant within a period of 60 days from the date of this order, failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of this order.

¶42

1. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶45

Judge

¶46

H.Ansari

Nagesh Thakur v. Shivkumar Pal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagesh Thakur v. Shivkumar Pal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhlal Vs Ratmaniya

Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Rajkumari Verma Alias Damini

Smt. Samrin Bai Vs Trijugirao Bhosale

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs Premin Bai Dhruv

Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs Smt. Sushila Yadav

Smt. Asu Gond Vs Mantosh Sahu