-1- 2025:CGHC:26556 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1608 of 2023 Deepali Gupta D/o Shri Ashok Ku. Gupta Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 10 Mahalpara, Baikunthpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Yadram Rajwade S/o Shri Hriday Ram Rajwade Aged About 35 Years R/o Katolipara, Odgi Police Station- Baikunthpur, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh (Rider) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Diwesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sashwat Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20.06.2025 1) The appellant has challenged the award dated 27.02.2023 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, District Koriya, in Claim Case No.43/2022, whereby the learned Tribunal passed an award of Rs.12,945/- only with interest at the rate of 8% in favour of the claimant/appellant, and the liability was fastened on the owner and driver. 2) Brief facts of the present case are that on 15.12.2021, at about 11:30 am, the claimant was traveling on her Scooty (CG16 CJ 8356) towards the District Court, Baikunthpur. As she reached near Talwapara, close to the Bullet showroom, the Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- Respondent, riding a Scooty (CG16 CG 9512), came from the wrong side and rashly collided with the claimant’s vehicle, the claimant fell and sustained multiple injuries including to the head, cheek, knee, and elbow, along with a fracture to the middle finger of her right hand. The accident occurred solely due to the negligent and reckless driving of the respondent. 3) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent/driver, while driving the offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG-16-CG-9512, dashed the appellant's scooty. Consequently, she sustained serious injuries, including a fracture of the middle finger of her right hand, and she was unable to perform her professional work for two months. He submitted that the appellant is an Advocate and her vehicle was also damaged, but these aspects were not considered by the learned Tribunal. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and supported the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6) Admittedly, the treating doctor was not examined by the appellant before the learned Tribunal. The medical documents submitted by the appellant were considered by the learned Tribunal. It was argued that the appellant, being an Advocate, could not work for two months; however, no document was produced before the learned Tribunal to substantiate this claim. The learned Tribunal, after -3- going through the evidence on record, passed the impugned award. Consequently, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order. 7) Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim