1 2025:CGHC:45307 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 700 of 2022 Kumari Anjali Pandey, D/o. Shri Sanjay Pandey, Aged About 13 Years, Profession - Student (Minor) Through Legal Guardian, His Mother Smt. Annapurna Pandey, W/o. Shri Sanjay Pandey, Aged About 38 Years, Address G.K. Township Colony, Siltara, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)………. (Claimant) --- Appellant versus 1 - Sanjay Pandey, S/o. Shri Thakur Prasad Pandey, Aged About 40 Years, Address - Bhatapara Durga Chowk, Siltara, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ……..(Driver) 2 - Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Dainik Bhaskar Complex, Rajbandha Maidan Raipur, District : Raipur (C.G.) ……. (Insurer) --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. A.L.Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.09.08 10:33:31 +0530 2 MAC No. 732 of 2022 TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Legal Manager, Office- 4th & 5th Floor, Dainik Bhaskar Complex, Rajbandha Maidan, Behind Shahid Smarak, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 1 - Ku. Anjali Pandey, D/o. Shri Sanjay Pandey, Aged About 13 Years, Occupation- Student (Minor) Being Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Annapurna Pandey, Aged About 38 Years, W/o. Shri Sanjay Pandey, R/o. G.K. Township Colony, Siltara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh……….(Claimant) 2 - Sanjay Pandey, S/o. Shri Thakur Prasad Pandey, Aged About 40 Years, R/o. Bhatapara Durga Chowk, Siltara Raipur, Chhattisgarh…. (Owner-cum-Driver) --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. A.L.Singroul, Advocate (S.B.) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 04.09.2025 1. The appellant/claimant has preferred the appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims 3 Tribunal by the impugned award dated 07.04.2022 passed in Claim Case No.206/2020 by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, 2. The appellant/insurance company has preferred the appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 07.04.2022 passed in Claim Case No.206/2020, by which the claim application of the claimant has been allowed and liability to pay compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- along-with interest @9% from the date of filing of claim application has been fastened upon the insurance company. 3. Claimant Ku. Anjali Pandey, aged about 13 years, studying in Class-6, suffered accident on 26.11.2019 arising out of the use of motorcycle owned & driven by Sanjay Pandey and insured by Tata AIG General Insurance Company. On account of rash and negligent act of respondent Sanjay Patel, her left leg was amputated below the knee, therefore, the claim application has been filed claiming compensation of Rs.34,00,000/-, in which, the insurance company before the Claims Tribunal took a plea in the written statement that FIR was registered against unknown person and the offending vehicle which was driven by respondent Sanjay Pandey bearing registration No.CG-04-MQ- 4 4351 was not involved in the accident in question, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to make the payment of compensation. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, allowed the claim application of the applicant and assessed the compensation of Rs. 9,00,000/- along-with interest @9% per annum payable to the claimant and liability has been fastened upon the insurance company. As such, the claimant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation wheres the insurance company has preferred this appeal to exonerate from its liability of payment of compensation. 5. Since both the appeals are arising out of award dated 07.04.2020 passed in Claim Case No.206/2020 by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, therefore, they clubbed together, heard together and are being decided of by this common judgment. 6. Mr. A.L.Singroul, learned counsel for the claimant would submit that the amount awarded to the claimant is not just and proper and on account of marriage prospect, the compensation awarded is only Rs.1,00,000/- whereas it ought to have been Rs. 5,00,000/- in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in 5 the matter of Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon & Anr.1 and similarly on future prospects 40% of total notional income has also not been granted and the amount of award with regard to pain & suffering also deserves to be enhanced. He would further submit that the appeal of the insurance company deserves to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the insurance company would submit that the compensation awarded to the claimant is just & proper and the insurance company is not liable to make payment of compensation, as offence was registered against unknown person and the vehicle owned & driven by respondent Sanjay Pandey was not involved in the accident, therefore, the appeal of the claimant deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records meticulously. Appeal of the Insurance Company 9. It is the case of the insurance company that the offence under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of I.P.C. was registered at the instance of Sanjay Pandey, driver & owner of the offending vehicle and FIR was also registered against unknown person. However, 1 2024 INSC 963 6 relying upon the statement of claimant, who is the eye-witness to the incident, the learned Claims Tribunal reached to the conclusion that the vehicle owned by respondent Sanjay Pandey drove the vehicle rashly & negligently caused the accident and nothing has been brought on record to controvert the statement of claimant Ku. Anjali Pandey. As such, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that the accident had occurred arising out of use of motorcycle owned & driven by respondent Sanjay Pandey is correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Therefore, the appeal of the insurance company deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal of the Claimant 10. Learned Claims Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 9,00,000/- under the different heads and the Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that the left leg of the claimant below the knee is 75% disabled and she is aged about 13 years. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of K.S. Muralidharan v. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr.2 and Kajal v. Jagdish 2 2024 SCC Online SC 3385 7 Chand & Ors.3, this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court Disability to the extent of 75% Rs. 5,00,000/- Rs. 10,99,062/- Medical expenses Rs. 1,25,000/- Rs. 1,25,000/- Future medical expenses Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 25,000/- Pain & suffering Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 3,00,000/- Special diet, transportation & attendant Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 50,000/- Loss of marriage prospects Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 3,00,000/- Total Rs. 9,00,0000/- Rs. 18,99,062/- 11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 9,00,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 18,99,062/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 9,00,000/-, the claimant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 9,99,062/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim 3 (2020) 4 SCC 413 8 application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 12. In the result, the appeal of the insurance company is dismissed and the appeal of the claimant is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein- above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok