1 2025:CGHC:17833 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1311 of 2018 1 - Bharat Das S/o Udaldas Manikpuri Aged About 32 Years Resident And Post Baikunth, Police Station Nevra, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Domar S/o Brijlal Sahu, R/o Behind Mini Mata Chowk Gudiyari, Police Station Gudiyari, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Truck No. C G- 04/J/0995). 2 - Satnam Singh Hora S/o Jasbir Singh Hora R/o Shyamnagar Raipur, Police Station Telibandha, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Truck No. C G 04/J/0995). 3 - National Insurance Company Ltd Through Divisional Manager, GE Road Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Truck No. C G – 04/J/0995). ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Adv. For Respondents No. 3 : Mr. Dasrath Gupta, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order on Board ( 21 .0 4 .202 5 ) Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.04.22 15:00:12 +0530 2 1. This is the claimant’s appeal against the award dated 18.05.2018 passed by the 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.664/2015 whereby a compensation amount of Rs. 4,00,000 has been awarded in favour of the claimant. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.9,99,285/- claimed by the claimant/appellant by filing claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) for damage of his vehicle sumo bearing registration No. CG-04-FC-4925 in the motor accident on 16.01.2015, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim application till its actual payment. 3. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence, held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No. CG-04-J-0995 by its driver Domar – respondent No.1 herein; appellant’s sumo vehicle damaged in the accident; the tribunal on the basis of evidence a total sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- has awarded as compensation. Hence, the appeal for enhancement. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned tribunal has failed in awarding due, just and proper amount of compensation under the head of damages even when it was estimated by the mechanic and therefore the award deserved to be set aside in order to do justice to the appellant. The tribunal has wrongly depreciated the value of the vehicle damaged, on the basis of its being five year old. Its purchase price has also not been assessed properly. Hence, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the compensation may be enhanced. 3 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 supported the impugned award and submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is based on the proper appreciation of the material available on record and does not call for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal, including award impugned. 7. In the case in hand, on the date of the accident, i.e. 16.01.2015, the sumo vehicle bearing registration No. CG- 04-FC-4925 got damaged, but in the invoice vide Ex.P-14 presented by the claimant, the amount of the damaged parts has not been mentioned in detail. The photographs of the said vehicle have also not been produced by the claimant/appellant. Similarly, the damaged report has not been produced by any surveyor, and it is apparent from the insurance policy that the value of the said vehicle was Rs. 5,79,546/- at the time of insurance, the vehicle was 5 years old. Considering the above material, the compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- awarded by the claims tribunal is not inappropriate. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal is based on the proper appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, which does not call for any interference. 8. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge H.L. Sahu