1 2025:CGHC:45462 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1265 of 2019 1 - Nandkumar Dubey S/o Dwarika Prasad Dubey Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Balpur, Police Station - Sarsiva, District - Balodabazar Chhattisgarh. ( Registered Owner Of Motorcycle No. Cg - 13 H - 9345), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Babulal Soni S/o Pusauram Soni Aged About 50 Years R/o Village - Bhinoda, Police Station - Sarsiva, District - Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rakesh Dubey S/o Prem Kumar Dubey Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Balpur, Police Station - Sarsiva, District - Balodabazar Chhattisgarh. ( Driver Of Motorcycle No. Cg - 13 H – 9345). ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. A. S. Rajput, Advocate For Res. No. 1 : Mr. Anand Kumar Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Deepak Jain, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge Order On Board 04/09/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth “MV Act”) has been filed by the appellant/owner assailing legality, propriety 2 and correctness of the impugned award dated 28.03.2019 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) {for short, ‘Claims Tribunal’ } in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 09 of 2018. 2. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs. 22,05,000/-, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 80,145/- on account of injuries sustained by the respondent No. 1/claimant in an accident that occurred on 23.02.2017 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. Motorcycle bearing Registration No. C.G. 13-H/9345 by its driver respondent No. 2 and owned by appellant/owner. 3. An application under Section 166 of the MV Act was filed by the claimant/respondent No. 1 pleading inter alia that due to the said accident respondent No. 1/claimant sustained severe injuries resulting into permanent disability and remained hospitalized for about 5 to 6 days. At the time of accident, he was earning Rs. 10,500/- per month by working as Mason. 4. Application was denied by the appellant on various grounds. 5. On the basis of above broad pleadings, learned Tribunal framed issues, decided those issues in favour of injured/claimant and awarded the abovestated amount of compensation. 6. Mr. Rajput, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/owner submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on higher side, as the claimant has sustained injuries on his own negligence, the impugned award may be set aside and the appellant may be exonerated from its liability to pay compensation to the claimant. 3 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 supports the impugned award. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and perused the documents available on record. 9. Learned Claims Tribunal on assessment of the compensation, found that at the time of accident, respondent No. 1 was aged about 50 years and due to the said accident, he remained in hospital for about 5 to 6 days and also spent certain amount on his medical treatment and, thus, awarded the total compensation of Rs. 80,145/- which does not appear to be excessive amount looking to his age, period of hospitalization and the amount spent on his medical treatment, therefore, considering every aspects of the matter, in my opinion, the Tribunal has not erred in awarding the aforesaid compensation to the claimant. 10. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput,) Judge Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.09.19 18:28:23 +0530