The court ruled that contributory negligence of the deceased was rightly assigned at 50%, and recalibrated income for compensation to Rs.7,500, affirming spousal and parental consortium allowances.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment/award dated 11.07.2024 passed by the learned District Judge-III-cum- M.A.C.T-III, Giridih in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 27 of 2023.

3. Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the claimants have filed the present appeal for enhancement of the awarded amount passed by the learned Tribunal. He submits that the income of the deceased was wrongly calculated by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs.6,000/- only and in view of that, the same may kindly be modified as the deceased was working as a goldsmith. He further submits that under the head of consortium, lesser amount of Rs. 40,000/- only has been provided which is further required to be taken care of by this Court. He then submits that 50% contributory negligence has been fastened upon the deceased which is not in accordance with law and recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Mohammed Hakkim v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors. in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 28062-63 of 2023 vide judgment dated 29.07.2025 held that the contributory negligence can be fastened only upto 30%. On these grounds, he submits that the award may kindly be modified.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2-Insurance Company opposed the prayer and submits that no evidence with regard to earning of the deceased has been brought on record and it is not proved that the deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month and, as such, no interference is required to be made by this Court. So far as the consortium is concerned, the same is in accordance with law and, as such, on that point also, no interference is required to be made by this Court. He further submits that so far as 50% contributory negligence is concerned, the learned Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the deceased in view of the fact that the deceased was not driving the motor cycle keeping a safe distance and there is Regulation No.23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 issued on 12.06.1989 by the Ministry of Surface Transport/Jal Bhootal Parivahan Mantralaya (Transport Wing/ Parivahan Paksha), Government of India, wherein, Regulation No. 23 has been made for keeping sufficient distance. He submits that this aspect of this matter has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nishan Singh and others. v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited through Regional Manager and others , reported in (2018) 6 SCC 765 He further submits that considering the said Regulation No. 23, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if sufficient distance is not maintained, the contributory negligence will be there. He relied upon paragraphs 12 and 14 of the said judgment, which read as under:

“12. The finding so recorded by the Tribunal has been affirmed by the High Court, by observing that the evidence was clearly indicative of the fact that the Maruti car was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, which was the cause for accident of this nature and resulting in death of one of the passengers in the Maruti car. The Maruti car was driven by none other than PW 2 Manjeet Singh. In his evidence, he has admitted that the subject truck was running ahead of the Maruti car for quite some time about one kilometre and at the time of accident, the distance between the truck and Maruti car was only 10-15 ft. He has also admitted that the law mandates maint