1 2025:CGHC:23101 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1689 of 2017 1 - Govind Sahu S/o Shri Ramphal Sahu, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Pampapur, P.S. Surajpur, Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ............Driver, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Shivsharan Sahu S/o Late Banwari Lal Sahu, Aged About 48 Years Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Devipur, P.S., Tahsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ..............Claimant, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mahesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Parshottam Sahu, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Salhi, P.S. And Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ...............Owner Of Chhoti Hathi No. C.G.15 A 9581, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Shri Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent No.1/claimant : Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent No.2/owner : None Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/06/2025 1. This is an appeal against the award dated 11.9.2017 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.07.22 19:30:03 +0530 2 Surajpur in Claim Case No.64 of 2015, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,67,455/- in favour of the injured/claimant fastening liability upon the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle jointly and severally. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the driver of the offending vehicle challenging the liability fastened upon him. The offending vehicle bearing registration No.CG 15 A 9581 was not insured. On the date of accident, i.e., 19.2.2015, the claimant was travelling from Village Devipur to Village Salhi through motorcycle and when he reached near Aamgaon Curve, at that point of time, the driver of offending vehicle by driving it negligently dashed the motorcycle of the claimant from the front side , resultantly the claimant received grievous injuries. He was admitted to Surajpur Hospital for primary treatment and thereafter to Mission Hospital, Ambikapur. Thereafter, he was shifted to Medishine Hospital, Raipur, where the claimant was getting treatment. 3. The Claims Tribunal, after recording the evidence, heard the arguments of both the parties, passed the award vide its award dated 11.9.2017 and awarded the compensation of Rs.2,67,455/- against the driver as well as owner of the offending vehicle. Dissatisfied by the said award, the appellant has filed the instant appeal for setting aside the award. 4. Since the vehicle was not insured, as such the Claims Tribunal has fastened liability to pay compensation upon the driver and 3 the owner of the offending vehicle jointly and severally. Rs.1,47,455/- has been awarded towards treatment, Rs.50,000/- has been awarded towards loss of income, Rs.20,000 has been awarded towards pain and suffering, Rs.15,000/- has been awarded for attendant, Rs.10,000/- has been awarded towards transport expenses, Rs.10,000/- has been awarded towards diet, Rs.15,000/- has been awarded towards loss of amenities. Thus, a total sum of Rs.2,67,455/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant. 5. The driver of the offending vehicle has filed this appeal while stating that in fact no accident has taken place from the vehicle in question. A false report has been lodged by the claimant against the vehicle. The accident took place upon own negligence of the claimant. However, the vehicle driven by the present appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. 6. No one has appeared on behalf of the owner of the offending vehicle. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondent/claimant. 8. From perusal of the record, it is evident that the accident occurred on 19.2.2015 and upon lodging of the FIR, due formalities were done and the offending vehicle was held liable for the accident. The insured witness has been 4 examined as AW1. He suffered fracture of right shoulder. His right rib was also fractured. His right leg was also fractured from knee. He was admitted in the hospital at Ambikapur from where he was referred to Raipur where steel rod was inserted. He has produced documents in respect of treatment which have been considered by the Claims Tribunal and after considering the entire evidence, the Tribunal was satisfied and has passed the appropriate award, which is in accordance with law and the same does not call for any interference by this Court. 9. The appeal being bereft of merit is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh