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 Signature Not Verified 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 Signature Not Verified 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