Parking a vehicle in the middle of a road without indicators or warning lights at night constitutes negligence; such a violation outweighs the contributory negligence of a rider, even if the rider violated rules by carrying extra passengers.

Judgment On Board

1) The claimants have preferred these two appeals against the judgment and award dated 10.12.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sarguja, District Ambikapur, in Claim Case Nos. 73/2022 and 72/2022, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.5,59,200/- on account of the death of Karan Khess and Rs.5,59,200/- on account of the death of Surendra Bakhla, along with interest @ 7% per annum.

2) Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 27.02.2022, the deceased, namely, Karan Khess and Surendra Bakhla, were travelling on a motorcycle driven by Sagar Singh, which collided with a stationary truck bearing Registration No. CG30 B 0394. As a result of the said accident, Karan Khess and Surendra Bakhla sustained grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to the death.

3) In MAC No.720 of 2023 :- The claimants, who are parents of deceased Karan Khess filed claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein they pleaded that the age of deceased was 21 years and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. They claimed a sum of Rs.62,41,000/- before the Tribunal.

4) In MAC No.730 of 2023 :- The claimants, who are father, wife and a child of deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein they pleaded that the age of deceased was 21 years and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. They claimed a sum of Rs.62,41,000/- before the Tribunal.

5) The insurance company filed reply and denied averments made in the claim petitions.

6) The Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and thereafter awards were passed.

7) Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the claimants, submits that the deceased persons, namely, Karan Khess and Surendra Bakhla, were aged about 21 years at the time of the accident and were labourers earning Rs.12,000/- per month. He submits that the learned Tribunal assessed the notional income of the deceased persons at Rs.7,000/- per month, which is not in consonance with the minimum wage matrix applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh at the relevant time. He further contends that the learned Tribunal failed to grant proper compensation under the conventional heads. He would further submit that the Tribunal has committed a grave error of law in holding 50% negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. According to him, there is no cogent evidence to establish negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. He would contend that the truck was stationary on the middle side of the road without indicators or tail lights. He, therefore, prays that the findings with regard to contributory negligence recorded by the Tribunal are not based on legal foundation and deserve to be set aside and the compensation be enhanced accordingly.

8) Mr. Maini, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company opposes the submissions advanced by Mr. Biswas. Learned counsel contends that there is no documentary evidence to establish that the deceased persons were earning Rs.12,000/- per month each, therefore, the Tribunal rightly assessed the income of the deceased persons at Rs.7,000/- per month. He further submits that the truck was parked on the left side of the road and there was negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. He would submit that three persons were travelling on the motorcycle in contravention of the Motor Vehicles Rules, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly decided the issue of contributory neg