Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Shyama vs Raju on 24 April, 2025
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11022
1 MA-4177-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 24TH OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 4177 of 2023
SMT. SHYAMA AND OTHERS
Versus
RAJU AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vishal Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Sudhir V. Dandwate, Advocate for the respondent No.3.
JUDGEMENT
This miscellaneous appeal by appellants/claimants under Section 173(1) of the
Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 is arising out of the Award dated 03.05.2023 passed by
Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Mandsaur (hereinafter referred to
as "the Claims Tribunal") in M.A.C.C. No.154/2022 praying for setting aside the
finding of the Tribunal regarding contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased.
2. Brief facts of the care are that on 30.03.2022, deceased Narendra Khetra
was returning back to his home on his scooter, after attending a ceremony, at the
same time, the offending motorcycle bearing registration No.MP14-ND-7790,
which was being driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently suddenly
dashed the scooter of the deceased Narendra Khetra, due to which he suffered
grievous injuries, fracture and vomitting and felt unconscious. He was
immediately taken to the District Hospital, Mandsaur from where he was referred
to GBH American Hospital, Udaipur and he was kept in ICU on 31.03.2022 and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11022
2 MA-4177-2023
further surgery and treatment were carried upon him. However, due to grievous
injuries sustained by him, during treatment, he succumbed to his injuries on
12.04.2022.
3. The dependents of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Tribunal
seeking compensation.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of parties, the Tribunal framed issues and
recorded evidence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after
appreciating the evidence that came on record, the Tribunal awarded a total
compensation of Rs.14,82,022/-however, deducted 50% amount towards
contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in the accident and awarded
only a sum of Rs.7,41,011/- payable by the insurance company, driver and owner
of the offending vehicle jointly and severally.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Tribunal has committed
error in holding 50% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased on the
basis that the deceased was not wearing helmet. The Tribunal ought to have
considered the fact that the death was caused due to rash and negligent driving of
the offending vehicle by respondent No.1. In support of his contention, he has
relied upon the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Anjana Narayan Kamble
& Ors. Vs. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited &
Anr. in Civil Appeal No.5113/2022 dated 04.08.2022, wherein it has been held as
under:-
"6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant relied upon the judgment of
this Court in Mohammed Siddique & Anr. vs. National Insurance
Company Limited & Others reported in (2020) 3 SCC 57, wherein this
Court held that the deceased was negligent as 3 persons on a motor
cycle could have added to the imbalance. It was held that motor cyclist
may be violating the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for which the deceased
may be liable to penalty but such violation by itself, cannot lead to a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11022
3 MA-4177-2023
finding of contributory negligence. This court held :-
"13. But the above reason, in our view, is flawed. The fact that the
deceased was riding on a motor cycle along with the driver and another,
may not, by itself, without anything more, make him guilty of
contributory negligence. At the most it would make him guilty of being
a party to the violation of the law. Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, imposes a restriction on the driver of a two wheeled motor
cycle, not to carry more than one person on the motor cycle. Section
194C inserted by the Amendment Act 32 of 2019, prescribes a penalty
for violation of safety measures for motor cycle drivers and pillion
riders. Therefore, the fact that a person was a pillion rider on a motor
cycle along with the driver and one more person on the pillion, may be a
violation of the law. But such violation by itself, without anything
more, cannot lead to a finding of contributory negligence, unless it is
established that his very act of riding along with two others, contributed
either to the accident or to the impact of the accident upon the victim.
There must either be a causal connection between the violation and the
accident or a causal connection between the violation and the impact of
the accident upon the victim. It may so happen at times, that the
accident could have been averted or the injuries sustained could have
been of a lesser degree, if there had been no violation of the law by the
victim. What could otherwise have resulted in a simple injury, might
have resulted in a grievous injury or even death due to the violation of
the law by the victim. It is in such cases, where, but for the violation of
the law, either the accident could have been averted or the impact could
have been minimized, that the principle of contributory negligence
could be invoked. It is not the case of the insurer that the accident itself
occurred as a result of three persons riding on a motor cycle. It is not
even the case of the insurer that the accident would have been averted, if
three persons were not riding on the motor cycle............" (Emphasis
Supplied)
7. In the present case, there is no such evidence of contributory
negligence except fact of three riders on the motor cycle and of not
wearing helmet by the deceased. Therefore, in view of the enunciation
of law, we find that the High Court was not justified in deducting 30%
of the amount of compensation assessed by the Tribunal for the reason
that the deceased was triple riding the Motor Cycle or was not wearing a
helmet. The violation of rules for driving a motor vehicle is not a
ground to deduct the amount of compensation awarded unless there is
proof of either the accident could have been averted or the impact could
have been minimized.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has
supported the impugned award and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. In the present case, there is no such evidence of contributory negligence
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11022
4 MA-4177-2023
except the fact that deceased was not wearing helmet at the time of accident.
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Anjana
Narayan Kamble (supra), I find that the Tribunal was not justified in deducting
50% of the amount of compensation on the part of contributory negligence of
deceased as he was not wearing a helmet. The violation of rules for driving a
motor vehicle is not a ground to deduct the amount of compensation awarded
unless there is proof of either the accident could have been averted or the impact
could have been minimized.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the deduction made by the Tribunal, on account
of alleged contributory negligence is set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed
and the Award of the Tribunal is restored.
10. The claimants are entitled to get total amount of compensation i.e.
Rs.14,82,022/-. The said amount be paid within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Rest of conditions as imposed by
learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact.
11. With the aforesaid, miscellaneous appeal filed by the
appellants/claimants stands disposed of.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
gp
