1 2025:CGHC:43067 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 736 of 2017 1 - Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd., Divisional Office Dhamtari Second Floor, Near To Gandhi Chowk Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ...............Insurer Of Vehicle Kujar Number C.G.04 T 8006, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Atmaram S/o Rainuram, Aged About 35 Years R/o Kodobhath Thana And Tehsil Mainpur District Gariaband, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Gokulram Bansar S/o Chaituram Bansar, R/o Santoshi Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...............Driver Of Vehicle Kujar Number C.G.04 T 8006, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Laxmidas Murchulla S/o Balakdas Murchuliya, R/o Torega Binda Navagarh, Tehsil And Thana Mainpur District Gariaband, Chhattisgarh ...............Owner Of Vehicle Kujar Number C.G.04 T 8006, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 882 of 2017 1 - Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd. Divisional Office Dhamtari Second Floor, Near To Gandhi Chowk ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ..............Insurer Of Vehicle Kujar Number C.G. 04 T 8006, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Ghanshyam Netam S/o Antram Netam Aged About 23 Years Kodobhath Thana And Tahsil Mainpur District Gariaband, Chhattisgarh ..............Claimant, Chhattisgarh 2 - Gokulram Bansar S/o Chaituram Bansar, R/o Santoshi Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...............Driver Of Vehicle Kujar Number C.G.04 T 8006, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Laxmidas Murchulla S/o Balakdas Murchuliya, R/o Torega Binda Navagarh, Tehsil And Thana Mainpur District Gariaband, Chhattisgarh ...............Owner Of Vehicle Kujar Number C.G.04 T 8006, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Shaleeni Jangle, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A. L. Singroul, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 25/08/2025 1. Since the factual matrix and the core issues involved in both appeals are identical and arise from the same accident dated 07.10.2012 passed in Claim Cases No. 151/14 and 152/14 respectively, the appeals have been clubbed, heard together, and are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, MAC No.736 of 2017 is treated as the lead case. 2. These appeals arise out of the same accident and prays exoneration 3 of the appellants insurance company from payment of compensation and reimbursement of all compensation amount paid to the claimants by the appellants insurance company. 3. Facts of the present case, in nutshell, are that on 07/10/2012, the respondent No.1 was returning to his native village after attending a Kisan Mela (Farmer’s Fair) and was traveling in a vehicle (Kujer vehicle bearing registration number CG-04T-8006) from Raipur. Near the Nimora Tractor Shop at Mana, the vehicle met with an accident. As a result of the accident, the respondent No.1 and several other passengers sustained serious injuries. The respondent no.1 suffered serious injuries on his head, abdomen, throat, and right hand. He was admitted to Mekahara Hospital for treatment, where he remained hospitalized until 23/10/2012. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the applicant had to endure physical, mental, and financial hardship. Upon reporting the incident at Abhanpur Police Station, a criminal case bearing Crime No. 310/12 was registered against Respondent No.2 under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence this appeal. 4. The Driver and owner remained ex-parte before this Court and had not filed any written reply/submission on their behalf. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance companies submit that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation against the appellant insurance company despite the offending vehicle being driven without a valid driving licence, as established by the Regional Transport Officer’s testimony and official documents, which contradict the driver’s claim of 4 possessing a valid licence. Further, the Tribunal wrongly proceeded with the claim despite non-joinder of necessary parties, the owner, driver, and insurer of the other vehicle involved in the collision whose absence renders the petition liable to dismissal. 6. He further avers, the Tribunal incorrectly assessed the claimant’s income at Rs.400 per day without any documentary proof, resulting in an annual income exceeding Rs. 40,000, thereby rendering the claim not maintainable under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, as clarified by the Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Ors. Vs. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. 1 , Moreover, the possibility of contributory negligence due to the collision between the two vehicles was ignored, which should have led to apportionment of liability. For these reasons, the award is liable to be set aside and the claim petition dismissed. 7.On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side and requires interference of this Court and further enhancement is required to be made, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant insurance companies are liable to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 9. In view of the foregoing, the appeals are allowed-in-part. The appellant insurance companies are hereby exonerated from liability for payment of compensation in the present matters. The liability shall now 1 (2004) 5 SCC 385 5 rest solely upon the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. However, in the interest of justice and to ensure expeditious relief to the claimant, the insurance companies are directed to make payment of the awarded compensation to the claimant, if such payment has not already been made. The insurance companies shall be entitled to recover the amount so paid from the driver and owner i.e. Respondent Nos.2 & 3 of the offending vehicle in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid direction the appeal is allowed in-part. Certified Copy as per rules. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saxena