Chattisgarh High Court
Anjani Banafar vs Chandrshekahr on 5 August, 2026
1
CGHC010007572024
NAFR
PAWAN
KUMAR
Digitally signed by
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
PAWAN KUMAR
Date: 2026.08.05
Reserved on 24.04.2026
17:29:18 +0530
Pronouncement on 05.08.2026
Order (Full) Uploaded on 05.08.2026
MAC No. 86 of 2024
1 - Anjani Banafar W/o Late Pradeep Banafar Aged About 47 Years R/o Ward No., 19, Ram
Mandir Ward, Bazar Para, Bemetara, Post, Tahsil And Distt- Bemetara, Cg
2 - Devendra Banafar S/o Late Pradeep Banafar Aged About 29 Years R/o Ward No., 19,
Ram Mandir Ward, Bazar Para, Bemetara, Post, Tahsil And Distt- Bemetara, Cg
3 - Aditi Banafar D/o Pradeep Banafar Aged About 23 Years R/o Ward No., 19, Ram Mandir
Ward, Bazar Para, Bemetara, Post, Tahsil And Distt- Bemetara, Cg
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - Chandrshekahr S/o Mahesh Ram Navrange Aged About 27 Years Occupation- Driver,
R/o Village- Indouri, Police Chouki Dashrangpur, Distt- Kabirdham, Cg, Presently R/o Near
Durga Mandir, Milavat Para, Zone-3, Sector-11, Bhilai, Police Station- Khursipar, Distt-
Durg, Cg- 490011 Mob- 88713780881 (Driver Of Truck No. Cg- 07- Na- 8111)
2 - Rajesh Sharma S/o Laxminarayan Sharma Aged About 50 Years R/o New Khursipar
Baba Sweets, Police Station- Khuripar, Bhilai, Distt- Durg, Cg,- 490011 Mob-9826430271
(Owner Of Truck No. Cg- 07- Na- 8111)
3 - The Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Zonal Office Bhilai, Shivnath
Complex, G.E. Road, Supela, Bhilai, Distt- Durg, Cg- 490023 Mob- 07884035006
(Insurance Company Of Truck No. Cg- 07- Na- 8111, Policy No. 192190/31/2023/51,
Insurance Code- 131085938 Date From 13-05-2022 To 12-05-2023)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent Nos. 1 : Mr. Shikhar Shukla, Advocate
&2
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. R. N. Pusty and Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
2
C A V Judgment
This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) challenging the award dated 08.12.2023passed
in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 89 of 2023 by the 1 st Additional Motor
Accident Claim Tribunal, Bemetara District Bemetara, CG. By the
impugned award, against a claim of Rs. 1,02,01,784/-, the learned Tribunal
has awarded compensation of Rs. 19,90,952/- on account of death of
deceased Lokesh Banafar in an accident that took place on 18.01.2023 by
rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Truck) bearing
registration No. CG 07 NA 8111 driven by the respondent No. 1 / driver,
owned by respondent No. 2 / owner and insured with respondent No. 3 /
insurance company.
2. As per the pleadings of the claim application, the deceased was aged
about 25 years and was earning Rs. 27,166/- per month by working as
Assistant Grade- III in Municipality Bemetara (AG-3). The appellants /
claimants were dependent upon the income of the deceased therefore, the
above stated compensation was claimed.
3. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 filed their written statement and denied
the averments of the claim application and pleaded that on the date of
accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 3 /
insurance company there is no violation of terms and conditions of the
insurance policy, the respondent No. 3 is liable to pay the compensation.
4. The respondent No. 3 filed his written statement and denied the
averments of the claim application and pleaded that the compensation
claimed is excessive and exaggerated. It is specifically denied that the
deceased was employed as Assistant Grade-III in the Municipality,
Bemetara and was earning Rs. 27,166/- per month. It is further pleaded
that the registration of a criminal case against respondent No. 1 at Police
Station Amanaka, District Raipur, does not establish his negligence. The
3
respondent No. 3 also pleaded that the driver of vehicle No.
CG/07/NA/8111 was required to possess a valid and effective driving
licence and that the vehicle must have had a valid permit and fitness
certificate on the date of the accident. In the event of breach of the policy
conditions, respondent No. 3 would not be liable to indemnify or pay
compensation.
5. The learned Tribunal framed issues on the basis of the pleadings and
decided the same in favour of the appellants / claimants.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants / claimants submits that the
income of the deceased has been taken on the lower side and compensation
on all other heads is also on the lower side. In support of above contention,
reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the matters of Smt. Sarla Verma and others VS. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. He
further submits that the learned Tribunal erred in deducting 50% amount
of compensation for contributing negligence. This finding deserves to be set
aside.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the award and submits
that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased
on the basis of evidence available on record and therefore, awarded just
compensation which does not require any interference by this Court.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
submissions and perused the record.
9. Firstly, this Court would deal with the submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the appellants/claimants as to whether the finding
recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal on the issue of contributory
negligence can withstand judicial scrutiny. As per the pleadings in the
claim application the deceased along with his friend Vikrant Singh was
4
returning from Raipur to Bemetara on motorcycle bearing registration No.
CG 07 H 1073 as a pillion rider. It is pleaded that on the date of the
accident, the driver of the offending vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle, resulting in the death
of the deceased. The learned Claims Tribunal framed issue No. 1 with
regard to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle whereas the
issue No. 4(C) with regard to contributory negligence. While issue No. 1 was
held to be proved whereas the issue No. 4(C) was also answered in the
affirmative. The burden of proving issue No. 1 lay upon the
appellants/claimants, whereas the burden of proving issue No. 4(C) relating
to contributory negligence rested upon the respondents / driver, owner and
the insurance company.
10. Smt. Anjani Banafar (AW-1) and Vinit Kumar Singh (AW-2) was
examined on behalf of the appellants / claimants. Both of them are not eye
witnesses that they have not stated anything. However, AW-1 has stated
that his son died in the accident by rash and negligence of the offending
vehicle. She has exhibited the true copy of the criminal paper of Crime No.
37 of 2023 registered at Police Station Aamanaka District Raipur, CG total
26 pages as Ex. P-1. From the perusal fo the criminal papers, it appears
that the FIR was lodged against the driver of the offending vehicle. After
completion of investigation a charge-sheet under Sections 279, 337, 338
and 304-A of IPC was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First class, Raipur
District Raipur, CG.
11. From the record, it is evident that the motorcycle on which the
deceased was travelling as a pillion rider was being driven by Vikrant
Singh. Upon examining the driving licence of the motorcycle rider, the
learned Claims Tribunal observed that the licence was valid for the period
from 04.05.2023 to 03.05.2033. Since the accident had occurred on
18.01.2023, the Tribunal held that, on the date of the accident, Vikrant
5
Singh did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. The learned
Claims Tribunal further observed that the appellants/claimants had failed
to produce any documentary evidence or cogent oral evidence to establish
that Vikrant Singh was duly authorized and competent to drive the
motorcycle. On that basis, the Tribunal concluded that Vikrant Singh was
also negligent. As the accident involved two vehicles, the Tribunal treated
the case as one of contributory negligence and held that the
appellants/claimants were entitled to only 50% amount of compensation.
As stated above, the burden of proving Issue No. 4(C) was upon the
respondents. However, for reasons best known to them, they neither
examined any witness nor produced the driver of the offending vehicle to
establish that the driver of the motorcycle had also contributed to the
occurrence of the accident. It is well settled that proceedings under the
Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation are summary in nature. The
strict rules of evidence are not required to be applied in proving every fact.
The Claims Tribunal is required to determine the issue on the touchstone of
the preponderance of probabilities to ascertain whether the negligence of
the driver of the offending vehicle stands established. The claimants cannot
be expected to prove negligence in the same manner as is required in a
criminal trial. In the present case, Issue No. 1 regarding the rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle had already been decided in favour
of the claimants. The learned Claims Tribunal recorded a finding of
contributory negligence solely on the ground that the driver of the
motorcycle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence on the date
of the accident and, on that basis, deducted 50% amount of the
compensation. The finding so recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal
cannot be sustained for more than one reason. Firstly, the deceased was
not driving the motorcycle; he was merely travelling as a pillion rider.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased had, in any manner,
6
contributed to the occurrence of the accident. Secondly, the learned Claims
Tribunal erroneously treated the case as one of contributory negligence,
whereas, at the highest, the facts of the case could have attracted the
principle of composite negligence. The contributory negligence has been
attributed in cases where the accident involved two motor vehicles, one of
which was being driven by the deceased or the claimant, who sustained
injuries in the accident. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.O. Anthony v.
Karvarnan & Ors., (2008) 3 SCC 748, has drawn a clear distinction
between contributory negligence and composite negligence, and held in
paragraphs 6 & 7 as under:-
“6. ‘Composite negligence’ refers to the negligence on
the part of two or more persons. Where a person is
injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or
more wrongdoers, it is said that the person was injured
on account of the composite negligence of those
wrongdoers. In such a case, each wrongdoer is jointly
and severally liable to the injured for payment of the
entire damages and the injured person has the choice
of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a
case, the injured need not establish the extent of
responsibility of each wrongdoer separately, nor is it
necessary for the court to determine the extent of
liability of each wrongdoer separately. On the other
hand, where a person suffers injury, partly due to the
negligence on the part of another person or persons,
and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the
negligence on the part of the injured which contributed
to the accident is referred to as his contributory
negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some
negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated
merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the
damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries
stand reduced in proportion to his contributory
negligence.”
“7. Therefore, when two vehicles are involved in an
7accident, and one of the drivers claims compensation
from the other driver alleging negligence, and the other
driver denies negligence or claims that the injured
claimant himself was negligent, then it becomes
necessary to consider whether the injured claimant
was negligent and, if so, whether he was solely or
partly responsible for the accident and the extent of his
responsibility, that is his contributory negligence.
Therefore, where the injured is himself partly liable, the
principle of composite negligence will not apply nor can
there be an automatic inference that the negligence
was 50:50. The Tribunal ought to have examined the
extent of contributory negligence…”
12. The principal reason assigned by the Tribunal for recording such a
finding was that the driver of the motorcycle was not holding a valid and
effective driving licence on the date of the accident. This finding cannot
sustain in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir
Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh and ors., (2008) 12 SCC 436 in which it
has been held in paragraph 9 as below –
“9. If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he
commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion,
may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the
accident. It has been held by the courts below that it
was the driver of the mini-truck which was being driven
rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the
appellant was not possessing any licence but no finding
of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two-
wheeler rashly and negligently. If he was not driving
rashly and negligently which contributed to the
accident, we fail to see as to how, only because he was
not having a licence, he would be held to be guilty of
contributory negligence.”
Thus, the finding of the learned Claims Tribunal on the issue of
contributory negligence cannot withstand the scrutiny of this Court. Even
8
otherwise, the respondents failed to adduce any evidence to discharge the
burden of proving Issue No. 4(C). Consequently, the finding with regard to
contributory negligence is unsustainable in law and is hereby set aside.
13. This led to know the second point of determination with regard award
of just compensation. The deceased was working as Assistant Grade-III in
the municipalities, Bemetara. According to AW-2 his basic pay was Rs.
19500/- and adding the allowances his gross salary was Rs. 27166/- he
has exhibited the salary slip of the deceased vide Ex.P-11. The learned
Tribunal while assessing the compensation found that the brother of the
deceased was given compassionate appointment thus the appellants /
claimants are not entitled to any future prospect. Denying the future
prospect by the learned claims Tribunal on account of compassionate
appointment cannot sustain in the eye of law.
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vimal Kanwar and Ors. Vs.
Kishore Dan and Ors. Reported in (2013) 7 SCC 476 in paras 20 & 21
held thus-:
“20. The second issue is “whether the salary receivable
by the claimant on compassionate appointment comes
within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be
termed as “Pecuniary Advantage” liable for deduction.”
21. “Compassionate appointment” can be one of the
conditions of service of an employee, if a scheme to that
effect is framed by the employer. In case, the employee
dies in harness i.e. while in service leaving behind the
dependents, one of the dependents may request for
compassionate appointment to maintain the family of the
deceased employee dies in harness. This cannot be
stated to be an advantage receivable by the heirs on
account of one’s death and have no correlation with the
amount receivable under a statute occasioned on
account of accidental death. Compassionate appointment
may have nexus with the death of an employee while in
service but it is not necessary that it should have a
9
correlation with the accidental death. An employee dies
in harness even in normal course, due to illness and to
maintain the family of the deceased one of the
dependents may be entitled for compassionate
appointment but that cannot be termed as “Pecuniary
Advantage” that comes under the periphery of Motor
Vehicles Act and any amount received on such
appointment is not liable for deduction for determination
of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.”
15. Thus, in light of the settled legal position, the learned Claims
Tribunal erred in holding that the appellants/claimants were not entitled to
addition towards future prospects merely because appellant No. 2 had been
granted compassionate appointment. From the evidence available on
record, it is evident that the deceased was working as an Assistant Grade-
III and was a salaried employee. Ex. P-12C is the appointment order of the
deceased dated 30.07.2017, which shows that he himself had been
appointed on compassionate grounds. Ex. P-11 is the salary slip of the
deceased, according to which his basic salary was Rs. 19,500/-. After
adding dearness allowance, house rent allowance, computer allowance and
other admissible allowances, his gross monthly salary was Rs. 27,166/-.
Ex. P-3 the High School Certificate-cum-Mark Sheet, records the deceased’s
date of birth as 03.03.1998. Since the accident occurred on 18.01.2023, the
deceased was above 24 years but below 25 years of age on the date of the
accident. Accordingly, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others VS. Delhi Transport Corporation
and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma
General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors; (2018)
18 SCC 130, this Court proceeds to recompute the compensation in the
following manner:-
10
S. No. Description Amount 1. Monthly income 27,166/- 2. Total Yearly Income (27166x12) 3,25,992/- 3. 50% future prospect 1,62,996/- 4. Income after future prospect 4,88,988/-
5. Income Tax Deduction 11,949.4/- (12,000/-) 12,000/-
round figure
6. Total income after deduction of income tax 4,76,988/-
7. 1/2 Deduction 2,38,494/-
8. Loss of dependency 18×238494 42,92,892/-
9. Loss of estate 16,500/-
10. Funeral expenses 16,500/-
11. Filial Consortium to appellant No. 1 40,000/-
Total 43,65,892/-
16. Since learned Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs.
19,90,952/-, the enhanced amount which he now is entitled to get
comes to Rs. 23,74,940/-. Order accordingly.
17. The amount of compensation shall be paid by the insurance
company / respondent No. 3 within a period of 60 days with 6%
interest, from the date of appeal i.e. 08.01.2024.
18. After deposit Rs. 50,000/- shall be disbursed to appellant No. 2;
Rs. 1,00,000/- shall be disbursed to appellant No. 3 and Rs.
20,00,000/- of four different fixed deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- (five lacs)
each shall be invested in a nationalized bank for a period of three
years in the name of appellant No. 1. Remaining amount shall be paid
to appellant No. 1 through bank transaction/account payee cheque.
19. Appeal thus partly allowed.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
JUDGE
Pawan
