(MAC No.881/2022) 2025:CGHC:40923 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 881 of 2022 United India Insurance Company Limited, Through its Branch Manager, Micro-Office, Paras Complex, In front of SBI, Gurudwara Road, Station Road, Durg, Tahsil & District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Non-applicant No.3) ... Appellant versus 1. Santosh Kumar Pandey, S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Pandey, Aged about 40 years, R/o Village Budhwara, Ward No.8, Post Office Udiya, Police Station & Tahsil Sahaspur-Lohara, District Kabirdham (C.G.), Presently residing at Milpara, Ward No.38, Durg, Tahsil & District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Applicant) 2. Gaur Singh Verma, S/o Late Kejuram Verma, Aged about 43 years, R/o Azad Ward, Ganjpara, Durg, Police Station, Tahsil & District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Driver/rider of Vehicle) (Non-applicant No.1) 3. Preetam Kumar Chandrakar, S/o Sukhnandan Chandrakar, Aged about 35 years, R/o Village Vinayakpur, Police Station Anda, Tahsil & District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Owner of Vehicle) (Non-applicant No.2) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.08.18 16:36:11 +0530 (MAC No.881/2022) Judgment on Board 13/08/2025 1. The appellant Insurance Company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 13- 5-2022 passed by the 6th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No.180/2021, by which a compensation of ₹ 5,06,466/- has been awarded to the claimant/ injured for the injury suffered by him, but not permanent injury, fastening liability upon the Insurance Company. 2. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company, would submit that as per paragraph 26 of the impugned award, the amount awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal for treatment, hospitalisation & medicines; for transportation; for nourishing food; for miscellaneous expenditure; for future medical expenses; for damages for pain, etc. are on higher side. 3. Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, counsel for respondents No.2 & 3, would support the impugned award and oppose the appeal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. Page 3 of 3 (MAC No.881/2022) 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, I am of the considered opinion that learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company could not demonstrate that the amount awarded to the claimant is on higher side. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this appeal. It deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed without there being any order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma