-1- 2025:CGHC:18087 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1103 of 2020 Suresh Sahu S/o Shri Firangi Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Ganiyari, Police Station Pulgaon, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Vijay Adsule S/o Shri Girdhari Adsule Aged About 44 Years R/o Qr. No. 475/2680, Sant Tukaram Nagar, Pimpri, Pune, District -Pune, Maharashtra. (Driver) 2 - Shri Krihna Attarkar S/o Shri Vinayak Rao R/o Qr. No. 475/2680, Sant Tukaram Nagar, Pimpri, Pune, District Pune, Maharashtra. (Owner) 3 - Branch Manager National Insurance Co. Limited Pune, (Maharashtra), Through National Insurance Company Limited, Supela, G.E. Road, Behind Ghadi Chowk, Akash Ganga, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ... Respondent(s) _____________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : None appears though served For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate __ _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 22/04/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, this appeal is heard finally. Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.04.29 10:08:52 +0530 -2- 2. Challenge in this appeal is to award dated 04.03.2020 passed by learned Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg (CG) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.99 of 2019 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has rejected the application filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) for grant of compensation towards damage caused to his motorcycle in a motor accident. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellant/claimant filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 against the respondent/non-applicants, pleading therein that on 07.11.2018 at 08.30 am, applicant's son was going to Kumhari for his work on applicant's motorcycle number CG-07/AL- 6654. When he stopped at a Petrol Pump to fill petrol in the motorcycle, non- applicant No.1 driving his Accent Car number MH-12/BV-6121 rashly and negligently dashed against applicant's son Sunil Sahu riding on the motorcycle and caused an accident due to which applicant's son suffered grievous injuries. Applicant's son was admitted to the District Hospital Durg in a critical condition. In view of his critical condition, he was referred to Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital Bhilai and, thereafter, he was referred to Shri Balaji Multi Specialty Hospital Raipur where he was admitted for the period from 07-11-2018 to 09-12-2018. It is the case of claimant that in the said accident applicant's motorcycle has been completely damaged and it is not in a condition to be repaired, due to which, applicant has suffered huge irreparable financial loss. He prayed for compensation of Rs. 40,000/- for the damaged motorcycle no. CG- -3- 07/AL-6654, Rs. 20,000/- for financial loss and Rs. 10,000/- for mental suffering, totaling Rs. 70,000/-. 4. Non-applicants No. 1 & 2 in their written statement denied the pleadings made in claim application that non-applicant No.1 driving his car rashly and negligently dashed against son of applicant Sunil Sahu. Pleading made by the claimant that in the motor accident, motorcycle of the claimant is completely damaged and the claimant has suffered considerable financial loss has also been denied. 5. Non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company in its written statement has also denied the pleadings made by the claimant that applicant's motorcycle has been completely damaged and it is not in a condition to be repaired and that applicant suffered huge financial irreparable loss. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently which met with an accident with the motorcycle driven by applicant’s son Sunil Sahu in which Sunil Sahu suffered grievous injury. Though breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, contributory negligence on the part of Sunil Sahu (Driver of the motorcycle) was found to be proved. Learned Claims Tribunal recording that except Ex.P-10 i.e. ‘chhati panchnama’ (damage panchnama) claimant has not produced any other document regarding repair of damaged motorcycle, purchase of spare parts or payment for the same, -4- dismissed the claim of appellant/claimant for grant of compensation towards damage of his motorcycle in the accident. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that as the occurring of accident with the motorcycle of the claimant, award of compensation towards personal injury caused to his son (driver of the motorcycle) in the said accident, Ex.P-10 ‘chhati panchnama’ produced by the claimant wherein damage caused to his motorcycle has been mentioned, have been admitted in the claim proceedings, learned Claims Tribunal erred in not granting any amount of compensation towards damage caused to motorcycle of the appellant/claimant. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellant/claimant. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of Claim Case. 10. In the case at hand, occurring of accident with the motorcycle of the claimant driven by his son- Sunil Sahu, injuries sustained by his son, grant of compensation to Sunil Sahu in personal injury case, liability fastened upon insurance company have not been disputed. Before the learned Claims Tribunal, the claimant has placed on record Ex.P-10 i.e. chhati panchnama of the motorcycle, which got damaged in the accident with Accent Car. Though it is not proved as to how much amount has been expended by the appellant/claimant for repairing of motorcycle, however, in the -5- evidence it is stated that looking to the repair cost and value of motorcycle, appellant did not get his motorcycle repaired. Nonetheless, in view of aforementioned evidence, it cannot be said that motorcycle owned and registered in the name of appellant/claimant did not get damaged in the said accident. Author of Ex.P-10 was also not brought as witness to prove the said document. However, when once learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that there was an accident of the Accent Car with said Motorcycle, rider of motorcycle suffered injury and have awarded amount of compensation by the impugned common award in Claim Case No.100 of 2019, accident of motorcycle with car is proved and, therefore, pleadings made in the Claim application No.99/2019 that in the accident, motorcycle got damaged and appellant/owner of motorcycle is entitled for amount of compensation towards damage of his motorcycle cannot be disbelieved. Though the appellant/claimant could not able to prove actual amount of damage suffered by him, however, looking to the beneficial piece of legislation, this Court find it appropriate to award compensation to the tune of Rs.15,000/- towards damage caused to the motorcycle considering Ex.P-10 i.e. chhati panchnama of the offending vehicle. 11. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Impugned award is set aside and following award is passed: “1. The appellant/claimant Suresh Sahu is entitled to get compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards damage caused to his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-07-AL-6654 jointly and severally from respondents. -6- 2. Prime liability to pay the compensation will be of respondent No.3/Insurance Company. 3. Amount of Rs.15,000/- which is now being awarded shall be deposited with the Tribunal within two months from today. 4. The amount of Rs.15,000/- shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. 12. A copy of this judgment along with records be sent to the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for necessary action and compliance. Sd/-- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen