1 2025:CGHC:45108 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 550 of 2020 Hazir Ali S/o Haidar Ali Aged About 48 Years R/o Musalman Mohalla , Bhatgaon, Bilaigarh, District (Revenue And Civil) Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Nemchand Yadav S/o Shyamlal Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Basaiha, Police Station Rajendragram , District Anuppur Madhya Pradesh. At Present R/o Vishnu Chowk Tifra Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Truck Bearing Vehicle No. C.G. 10 C / 5323) 2 - Karan Vishwakarma S/o Ashok Vishwakarma Aged About 24 Years R/o Vishnu Chowk Tifra , Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G. 10 C / 5323). 3 - Branch Manager Insurance Company The New India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Raipur Road, Balodabazar , District Balodbazar Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Vehicle Bearing Vehicle No. C.G. 10 C / 5323). ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate. For Res. No. 3 : Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 03/09/2025 1. The appellant /claimant, who is owner of the damaged vehicle i.e. pick 2 up Van bearing registration No. CG. 22-C-0174, has filed instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 challenging the impugned award dated 20.11.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloudabazar – Bhatapara in Claim Case No. 118/2018, whereby only Rs.30,000/- has been awarded on account damage of aforesaid vehicle. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that : collusion took place between Pick-up Van bearing registration No.. CG-154-ZA-0704 owned by the appellant/claimant and insured by the H.D.F.C, Agro Insurance Company Limited and the Truck bearing registration No. CG 10 C. 5323, driven by respondent No. 1, owned by the respondent No. 2 and insured by the New India Assurance Company Limited (respondent No. 3), and pursuant to the above accident the Pick up in question got damaged. 3. By filing claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘MV Act’) the appellant/claimant claimed compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for damages to his pickup Van. Although the accident was not denied but rash and negligent driving of Truck driver was denied by the respondent. 4. On the basis of above broad pleadings, learned Tribunal framed as many as 5 issues, decided those issues in favour of the appellant / claimant and awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 30,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition, till its actual payment, fastening liability of payment of compensation upon respondent No. 3 / Insurance Company. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on account of the said accident, vehicle of the appellant i.e. Pick-up Van bearing registration No.. CG-154-ZA-0704 is totally damaged, therefore, a lumpsum amount of compensation of Rs. 30,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal appears to be 3 shockingly on lower side, as such, claim for 3rd party property damages may be enhanced suitably. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company would submit that no bill regarding the expenses incurred on the repairing of vehicle has been filed by the appellant to assess the damage caused to the pick up vehicle and, therefore, learned Claims Tribunal on the basis of evidence adduced by the appellant recorded a finding that pick up vehicle was got damaged in the said accident and awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs.30,000/- along with interest, which is just & proper in the facts & circumstances of the case, which need not to be interfered with. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of Claims Tribunal. 8. As per evidence of appellant / claimant Hazid Ali, the pick up van bearing No. C.G. 22 C. 0174 has been completely damaged in the accident and presently, he got his vehicle checked by a mechanic and the mechanic had said that it was not reparable. Further he had bought the pickup vehicle in the year 2013. At the time of the accident, the cost of his vehicle was about four lakhs, but he also added some accessory to the vehicle at his own expenses, due to which, its cost became six lakhs rupees. But facts remains that, the appellant has not produced any bill regarding expense incurred in the repairing of the vehicle and the Mechanic, who said that the applicant's pick-up vehicle was not reparable due to being completely damaged has also not been examined, but despite all these facts, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation to the appellant/claimant for the damages of his vehicle. 9. When the matter is examined in the context of above broad features of the case, in my considered opinion, further award of Rs. 20,000/- would make 4 the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation. 10. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 50,000/-. The appellant is entitled for a further sum of Rs. 20,000/- over and above the amount of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 11. The above enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 20,000/- shall carry interest @ 9 percent per annum from the date of filing of appeal, till its actual payment. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the award shall remain intact. The award stands modified to the above extent. 12. The respondent No. 3/The New India Insurance Company Ltd. is granted two months’ time to deposit enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 20,000/- along with interest before the concerned Tribunal. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.09.26 12:55:57 +0530