1 2025:CGHC:13898 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No.1288 of 2019 1 - Smt. Gayatri Devi Sahu W/o Late Baranlal Sahu Aged About 37 Years 2 - Daulatram S/o Late Baranlal Sahu Aged About 20 Years 3 - Kumari Kamini D/o Late Baranlal Sahu Aged About 17 Years 4 - Mahendra Kumar S/o Late Baranlal Sahu Aged About 15 Years No.3 & 4 are minor represented Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Gayatri Devi Sahu All R/o Village- Nagdha, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh Appellants versus 1 - Madanlal Sahu S/o Shri Mehattar Ram Sahu R/o Village and Post Kua, Tahsil- Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 2 - Branch Manager ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Company Limited, First Floor, Commercial Building, Devendra Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Ramesh Dhruw S/o Shri Baiharam Dhruw R/o Village and Post Kua, Tahsil- Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 4 - Rupesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Narendra Sahu Aged About 21 Years R/o Sukulpara, Nawagarh, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle Discover No.CG-07-LW-1697) Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. G. P. Kurre, Advocate Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA 2 For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Animesh Pathak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Vishnu Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sanjeev Sahu, Advocate Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 22/03/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants/claimants against the award 29.03.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara in Claim Case No.117/2016, whereby claim of the claimants has only been partly allowed by awarding Rs.1 Lakh in their favour. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.04.2014 the deceased Baranlal Sahu was coming from Nawagarh to Nagdha in his motorcycle, at that time near Village Murta he was dashed by offending motorcycle bearing registration no.C.G.-07-LW-1697, which was being driven by respondent no.4 rashly and negligently, as a result of which Baranlal Sahu sustained grievous multiple injuries on his head, jaw and other part of his body. The injured Baranlal Sahu was admitted to Primary Health, from where he was referred to Life Care Hospital, Bilaspur. The injured Baranlal was availing Ayurved and Allopathic treatment from 19.04.2014 to 08.10.2017 and due to the injury, he died on 09.10.2017. Subsequently, the claimants, who are the family of 3 the deceased filed claim case before the learned Tribunal, which was partly allowed and they were awarded Rs.1 Lakh, against which the present appeal has been filed by the appellant insurance company. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned award is perverse, illegal and contrary to law. The compensation awarded is very low and is liable to be enhanced. The learned Claims Tribunal has failed to appreciate that due to the grievous multiple injuries, the deceased Baranlal was under treatment for long time and ultimately he died on 09.10.2017, therefore the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation by applying multiplier. The learned Claims Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the appellants are entitled to get the expenses incurred during treatment of late Baranlal, but without considering the medical bills submitted by the appellants, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded lump-sum amount by holding that the respondent insurance company has covered the risk of owner of vehicle upto Rs.1,00,000/- and did not award any compensation towards other conventional heads. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded 9% interest instead of 12% annual interest. Therefore, the impugned award deserves to be modified and the appellants be granted enhanced amount of compensation. 4. Learned counsels for the respondents oppose the submission made by the appellants’ counsel and jointly submit that the learned Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary 4 evidence available on record has rightly awarded the compensation amount in favour of the appellants, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Tribunal that the claimants filed application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the learned Tribunal for compensation on death of Baran Lal. It is an admitted position before the learned Tribunal that the deceased Baran Lal Sahu was the owner of the vehicle motorcycle bearing Registration No.CG04-KU-7418 and it is also not disputed that this vehicle was insured from 09.10.2013 to 08.10.2014. The learned Tribunal found that the claimants have failed to prove this fact that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.4/non applicant No.4 but the claimants have proved this fact that the deceased Baran Lal died in accident in which motorcycle No.CG04-KU- 7418 was involved. 7. It is clear from the statement of the eye witness Kuleshwar (AW- 2) that vehicle got jumped and because of which Baran Lal fell down in the pit and sustained injuries. He also admitted that non applicant No.4 was not at fault. The learned Tribunal also appreciated oral and documentary evidence properly including the copy of FIR and found that the appellants/claimants have failed to prove this fact that the accident occurred due to rash 5 and negligent driving of respondent No.4 and also found that as per eye witness, the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased himself. 8. The learned Tribunal has also found that the vehicle No.CG04- KU-7418 was insured with the respondent No.2 and the deceased was the owner/driver of the vehicle and as per insurance policy, the premium was paid for personal accident up to Rs.1 Lakh, as such the learned Tribunal rightly awarded Rs.1 Lakh in favour of the appellants/claimants. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal is based on the proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala