1 MAC No. 167 of 2022 2025:CGHC:35155 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 167 of 2022  Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Tiwari Enclave, Lalpur Chowk Ranchi (Jharkhand) Pin – 834001. ... Appellant versus 1. Minor Ashish Kumar Baghel (injured) S/o Subhash Kumar Baghel, aged about 9 years, through Natural Guardian Father Subhash Kumar Baghel, S/o Bigan Ram, aged about 42 years, Caste – Munda, R/o Binjpur, P.S. Duldula, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 2. Sakal Dev Yadav S/o Goverdhan Yadav, aged about 33 years, Cast Govala, R/o Kedlikala, Post Vrindawan, P.S. Chauparan, District Hazaribagh (Jharkhand), Mob. No. 9973804554. 3. Bhushan Kumar Sahu S/o Shivshankar Prasad Sahu, aged about 27 years Caste – Teli, R/o Bedo Jamtoli Road, P.S. Bedo Ranchi (Jharkhand), Pin 834001. ... Respondents For Appellant :- Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate. For Respondents No.2 & 3 :- Ms. K. Radhika, Advocate. ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.07.25 17:32:50 +0530 2 MAC No. 167 of 2022 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 22.07 .2025 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking reduction in the compensation amount awarded by the impugned judgment dated 30.09.2021 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh and also raised the ground that the driver/respondent No.2 herein of the offending vehicle did not have the valid driving license, therefore, the appellant may be exonerated from the liability. 2. Mr. Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that driver did not have the valid license, therefore, the Insurance Company ought to have been exonerated by the liability and furthermore, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the higher side as the permanent disability has not been sustained by victim, respondent No.1 herein and, 3 MAC No. 167 of 2022 therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed by making modification in the compensation amount. 3. Ms. K. Radhika, learned counsel for respondent No.2 & 3, would support the impugned judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal and oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal in paragraph No.17 of its judgment has clearly recorded a finding that as per the RTO, Ranchi, the driver has the valid license and the same was submitted before the R.T.O. Ranchi, for renewal. As such, in view of the aforesaid finding, the Insurance Company has failed to prove that the driver/respondent No.2 herein, did not have the valid license. 6. Furthermore, as per the submission of the appellant, the victim did not suffer the permanent disability. However, 4 MAC No. 167 of 2022 as per the disability certificate (Ex.A/17-C) proved by Dr. Anuranjan Toppo, would show that the injured has suffered the permanent disability to the extent of 70% and the condition of the victim is non–progressive and not likely to improve. 7. Considering the age of the victim to be 8 years at the time of incident who has suffered 70% disability of his right hand as per Ex.A/17-C proved by Anuranjan Toppo and also considering the fact that the driver had valid license, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal and also the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is not on higher side, accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit