Page No.1 of 3 IN MAC-454-2022 2025:CGHC:34983 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 454 of 2022 [Arising out of award dated 16.11.2021, passed in Claim Case No.95/2019 (Shakuntala Bai Kanwar v. Pramod Sahu and others) by the 2nd Addl. Motor Accidental Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba (CG)] The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Commercial Complex Block - D, T.P. Nagar, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. Through In-Charge, T.P. Hub, T.P. Hub Office, Rama Trade Centre, 1st Floor, Opp. Rajeev Plaza, Near Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Pin-495001 ... Appellant Versus 1 - Shakuntala Bai Kanwar W/o Shivmangal Singh Kanwar Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Balgi Basti, Ward No. 48, Balgi Project, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 2 - Pramod Sahu S/o Kapilnath Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o -12 Block, Secl, Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh (Driver) 3 - Korba Urban Public Transport (C.G. 12 X.0295) Zila Vyapar Evam Audyogik Center, Collectorate Complex, Korba, District - Korba Chhattisgarh. (Owner) ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. Akash Shirvastava, Advocate For Respondent No.01 : Mr. Akash Ahuja, Advocate For Respondent No.03 : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 22.07.2025 1. In this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 3 IN MAC-454-2022 1988 (for short the “MV Act”), the appellant- Insurance Company is calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned award dated 16.11.2021, passed in Claim Case No.95/2019 (Shakuntala Bai Kanwar v. Pramod Sahu and others) by the 2nd Addl. Motor Accidental Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba (CG), whereby the claim application filed by the respondent No.01/claimant has been allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.17,29,240/- has been awarded alongwith interest @ 7% PA from the date of claim on account of injuries suffered by the respondent No.01/claimant in an accident, which is stated to be occurred on 10.05.2019. 2. Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned AMACT is absolutely unjustified in allowing the claim application of the claimant. He vehemently argued that claimant was only having disability of temporary nature, but the learned AMACT has treated the same to be 80% permanent disability and, therefore, the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.6,37,740/- awarded under the head of medical expenses is unsustainable and bad in law. Hence, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned award and prays for dismissal of this appeal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the record with utmost circumspection. Page No.3 of 3 IN MAC-454-2022 5. In the instant case, though it is correct that the learned AMACT in Para-30 of the impugned award has disbelieved the disability certificate of the respondent No.01/claimant, but on the basis of the statement of the claimant and other evidence placed on record by the parties, clearly recorded a finding that the respondent/claimant suffered injuries (disability to the extent of 80%) in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Bus) bearing No.CG-12-X- 0295, which was owned by respondent No.03 herein and driven by the respondent No.02 and, since there was no breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, after calculating the amount of compensation, awarded Rs.17,29,240/- as total compensation with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application. As such, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the said findings recorded by the learned AMACT, as the same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Consequently, present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this appeal and same is hereby dismissed. No cost. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if