1 2025:CGHC:30990 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1742 of 2018 1 - Shrikant Yadav S/o Late Shri Mahendra Yadav Aged About 53 Years R/o Plot No. 130, Street No. 3, B, Zone-01, New Adarsh Nagar, Maharaja Chwok, P.S. Pulgaon, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh........(Claimant), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Rupendra Yadav @ Golu Yadav S/o Rewaram Yadav Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Masabhath, P.S. Anda, District- Durg, Chhattisgrah..........(Driver), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Devnarayan Verma S/o Late Devi Prasad Verma Aged About 46 Years R/o Street No.8, Shanti Nagar Bhilai, P.S. Supela, And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh......(Owner), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Branch Manager The New India Assurance Company Limited, Office At Prarakh Bhawan, Station Road, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh..........(Insurer)., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 & 2 : None. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 07/07/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant/claimant for enhancement against the award dated 20.07.2018 passed by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal of Additional Judge, Durg District – Durg (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 140/16 whereby compensation of Rs. 11,19,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum, in favour of the appellant/claimant has been awarded. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 01.06.2016, injured Shrikant Yadav was travelling from his office to home on his motorcycle when it was hit by the offending vehicle a Tata Matador bearing registration No. CG-07 ZB-1065 which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1. As a result of the accident, the injured sustained injuries to his right hand, right leg, right shoulder and back. It was further stated that the appellant was employed as a Mining Supervisor in the Mining Department and 3 was earning Rs. 28,000/- per month, therefore, a total compensation of Rs. 83,15,000/- was claimed under various heads. Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed their reply denying the allegations and asserted that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 on the date of the incident. Respondent No.3 i.e. Insurance Company also denied the claims and raised the defense of breach of policy conditions. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Claims Tribunal passed the impugned award dated 20.07.2018, awarding a meager compensation of Rs. 11,19,000/-. 3. In the award passed by the Tribunal, the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of future earing, Rs. 9,46,615/- towards medical bill, Rs. 25,000/- towards comfort, mental and physical agony and special diet, Rs. 7,600/- towards Assistance & Rs. 40,000/- towards transport. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 11,19,215/- has been awarded in favor of the appellant and respondent No. 3 insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation amount to the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 11,19,215/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that at the time of accident, the appellant was involved Mining Supervisor in the 4 Mining Department and was earning Rs. 28,000/- per month. The awarded compensation by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Therefore, the compensation amount may be enhanced suitably.. Hence, this appeal may be allowed and awarded amount needs to be enhanced suitably. 5. None for respondents No. 1 & 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper and required no interference by this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Both the parties are ready to argue the matter and accordingly instead of sending the matter before mediation center it is being decided by this Court itself. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the doctor has not been examined in this case and as such the amount which has been awarded in respect of pain and suffering, diet and the inconvenience caused to the appellant is very meager, the tribunal has awarded a sum 5 of Rs. 25,000/- as such while increasing the same it is enhanced and awarded to Rs. 75,000/-. 10. Looking to the injuries sustained by the claimant the amount awarded in respect of comfort, mental agony and diet is required to be enhanced. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 75,000/- towards comfort, mental agony and diet in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat