1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 304 of 2017 Judgment Reserved on: 12.11.2025 Judgment Delivered on: 15.1.2026 • Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. 1st Floor Rajiv Plaza Bus Stand Bilaspur, Present Address- Vyaparvihar Raod Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant(s) versus 1. (Died), Rupchand Gahwai, Through Lrs. As Per Honble Court Order Dated 08-12-2023 And 31-01-2024. 1.1 - (A) Mandanki Gahwai W/o Late Roopchand Gahwai R/o Village Ranigaon, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 1.2 - (B) Nikhil Gahwai S/o Late Roopchand Gahwai R/o Village Ranigaon, Tahsil-Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 1.3 - (C) Divya Gahwai D/o Late Roopchand Gahwai R/o Village Ranigaon, Tahsil-Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 1.4 - (D) Akhil Gahwai S/o Late Roopchand Gahwai R/o Village Ranigaon, Tahsil-Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Sanjay Yadav S/o Anand Ram Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o Sandhipara Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Durgesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Yadav R/o Mahamaya Para Ratanpur, P.S. Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jain, Advocate. For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : None. MAC No. 578 of 2017 1 - (Died) Roopchand Gahwai Through Legal Heir As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 08-12-2023, Chhattisgarh. 1.1 - Mandakini Gahwai W/o Late Roopchand Gahwai Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Ranigaon, Ps- Ratanpur,, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 1.2 - Divya Gahwai S/o Late Roopchand Gahwai Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Ranigaon, Ps- Ratanpur,, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 1.3 - Nikhil Gahwai S/o Late Roopchand Gahwai Aged About 21 Years R/o Village- Ranigaon, Ps- Ratanpur,, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 1.4 - Akhil Gahwai S/o Late Roopchand Gahwai Aged About 20 Years R/o Village- Ranigaon, Ps- Ratanpur,, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Sanjay Yadav S/o Anand Ram Yadav, Aged About 24 Years Sandhipara Ratanpur, P.S. Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Through Owner Of Vehicle Durghesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Yadav, R/o Mahamaya Para Ratanpur, P.S. Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ................Driver, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Durghesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Yadav, R/o Mahamaya Para, Ratanpur, P.S. Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ..............Owner, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Cholamandlam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Cholamandlam M S General Insurance 1st Floor Rajiv Plaza Bus Stand Bilaspur, Present Address Vyapar Vihar Road 3 Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh .............Insurer, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jain, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 & 2 : None. For Respondents No. 3 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Judgment 1. Both the appeals are arising out of one accident, in which one award dated 23.11.2016 has been passed. MAC No. 304 of 2017 is insurer’s appeal and MAC No. 578 of 2017 is claimants’ appeal against the award dated 23.11.2016 passed by the learned Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 231/15. MAC No. 304/2017 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was filed by respondent No.1/claimant seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor accident. The case of the claimant is that on 05.08.2004, after completing his work, he was standing at Nehru Chowk and thereafter boarded a Mahindra Scorpio bearing registration No. CG-10-FA-5388 along with his friend Sanjay Yadav, the owner of the vehicle, to proceed to his home at Ratanpur. When the vehicle reached near Village 4 Gatouri, non-applicant No.1 allegedly drove the vehicle rashly and negligently, lost control over it, and the vehicle turned turtle, as a result of which the claimant sustained grievous injuries on his head, jaw and back and allegedly lost four teeth. He was initially taken to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur for primary treatment and thereafter shifted to Apollo Hospital for better treatment. It was further pleaded that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the claimant suffered permanent disability and therefore filed the present claim application seeking compensation of Rs. 16,05,000/- under various heads, stating that he is an advocate by profession earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed their joint reply denying all adverse averments made against them. Permission under Section 170 of the Act was granted by the Tribunal on 18.07.2016. The present appellant– insurance company also filed its reply controverting the averments made in the claim application and specifically pleaded that the offending vehicle was insured as a private vehicle, but on the date of the accident it was being used for carrying passengers on hire and reward, and that the claimant was travelling after paying fare, in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, hence the appellant was not liable to pay compensation. It was further pleaded that the claimant neither suffered any permanent disability nor lost any teeth and that he did not suffer any loss in his profession due to the injuries, and therefore was not entitled to any compensation. It is pertinent to mention that AW-1, AW-2 5 and AW-3, in their cross-examination, admitted that the claimant had not suffered any permanent disability and that no disability certificate was filed; they also admitted that till date no root canal treatment or teeth implantation had been done. There is no admissible evidence on record to establish that the claimant lost his teeth in the said accident; however, the learned Tribunal, without properly considering the facts, evidence and documents on record, held that the claimant suffered loss of income of Rs. 1,00,000/- during the period of treatment and incurred Rs. 1,87,000/- towards medical expenses. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order/award passed by the learned Tribunal is bad in law as well as on facts, as the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the material available on record. He further submits that although the claimant was admitted in CIMS, Bilaspur, only for 5–6 days for treatment, the Tribunal erroneously awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of income for a period of 5–6 months, which is wholly contrary to the evidence on record. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal committed a grave error in awarding Rs. 1,87,000/- towards medical expenses by relying upon Exhibits P-8 to P-47 and P-50 to P-58, despite the fact that the total of the medical bills produced is much less than the awarded amount and that Exhibit P-58 is merely an estimate for root canal treatment and capping of teeth. The learned counsel further argues that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the statement 6 of AW-2, who clearly stated that only four teeth were broken and the remaining teeth were eroded due to natural causes, and that the claimant failed to prove loss of teeth in the accident by producing cogent documentary evidence or by examining the treating doctor. It is also urged that the learned Tribunal committed a serious error in holding that, on the date of the accident, the offending vehicle was being plied in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Lastly, the appellant seeks leave of this Hon’ble Court to reserve the right to raise such other grounds as may be available during the course of further proceedings. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,02,500/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably. 5. None for respondents No. 2 & 3 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and a careful perusal of the record, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. The learned Claims Tribunal has properly appreciated the pleadings, oral and 7 documentary evidence available on record and has awarded compensation which is just, reasonable and in accordance with law. Merely because the claimant was hospitalized for a limited period, the same by itself does not negate the fact that he required follow-up treatment and rest, and therefore the award of compensation towards loss of income cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse. Similarly, the medical expenses awarded by the Tribunal are based on the medical bills and treatment records produced on record, and no material illegality or excessiveness has been demonstrated by the appellant to warrant interference. 8. The findings recorded by the Tribunal with regard to negligence, nature of injuries and liability of the insurer are based on evidence and do not suffer from any legal infirmity. 9. In the absence of any perversity or patent error in the impugned award, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company is liable to be and accordingly dismissed. MAC No. 578/2017 10. Brief facts of the case, is that, the appellant filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs. 16,05,000/- along with interest before the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, on account of permanent disability sustained in a motor accident, impleading respondents No. 1 and 2 as the driver and owner and respondent No. 3 as the insurer of the offending Mahindra Scorpio bearing registration No. 8 CG-10-FA-5388; it is an admitted fact that respondent No. 1 was the driver, respondent No. 2 the owner, and respondent No. 3 the insurer of the said vehicle. The case of the appellant is that on the date of the incident, while travelling in the said Mahindra Scorpio along with his friend Sanjay Yadav from Bilaspur to his home at Ratanpur, near village Gatouri, respondent No. 1 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, lost control, and the vehicle overturned, as a result of which the appellant sustained grievous injuries to his head, jaw, and back, suffered a fracture of the backbone, and lost four teeth. He was initially treated at Apollo Hospital, thereafter at CIMS Hospital, and again shifted to Apollo Hospital for further treatment. Respondents No. 1 and 2 denied all the averments made in the claim petition in their written statement, asserting that the vehicle was being driven with due care and caution, that respondent No. 1 possessed a valid driving licence, and further pleaded that the vehicle was insured and, if any liability arose, the same was to be borne by the insurer. Respondent No. 3–insurance company also denied the claim, contending that the vehicle was insured as a private vehicle but was being used as a passenger-carrying vehicle, amounting to a breach of policy conditions, and therefore it was not liable to pay any compensation. After framing the issues and recording evidence, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim of the appellant. 11. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of 9 income (5 to 6 months), Rs. 1,87,500/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 5,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 5,000/- towards nutrition food and Rs. 5,000/- towards transportation. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 3,02,500/- has been awarded in favor of the appellant/claimant. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,02,500/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the awarded compensation by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Therefore, the compensation amount may be enhanced suitably. Hence, this appeal may be allowed and awarded amount needs to be enhanced suitably. 13. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 3 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 14. None for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 16. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 10 17. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hare Krushna Mahanta vs. Himadari Sahu & Another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 262 has observed as under:- “9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is borne from the record that the Claimant-Appellant had agreed on the additional consolidated sum granted by the High Court. It is imperative for this Court, however, to reiterate that despite such consent, the objective when granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is to ensure just and fair compensation is paid to the aggrieved party. This came to be reiterated by this Court recently in Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto reported in (2023) 1 SCC 204, wherein it was observed:” "17. The Tribunal/Court ought to award "just" compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the claim petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount." 19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs. 50,000/- 11 towards future treatment are hereby enhanced. 20. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 1,50,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 12.11.2025 15.1.2026 - 15.1.2026 Raghu Jat