-1- 2025:CGHC:27951 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2050 of 2019 United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Bramh Road Ambikapur, Near Hotel Kumkum, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Non Applicant No. 3) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Sandeep Rajwade, S/o Shri Mohelal Rajwade Aged About 31 Years (Applicant No. 1) 2 - Smt. Manju Rajwade W/o Sandeep Rajwade Aged About 26 Years (Applicant No. 2) Both are R/o Village Shiv Mandir Road, Udaypur, Police Station Udaypur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Hal Mukam- Odgee, Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chhatrapal Singh S/o Ghursai Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Parsa, Post Office Dandgaon, Tahsil Udaypur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh (Owner) (Non Applicant No. 1) 4 - Ramratan Singh Tekam @ Rahul S/o Somarsai Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Parsa, Police Station Udaypur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Driver) (Non Applicant No. 2) ... Respondent(s) ________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : None appears _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.07.08 10:21:20 +0530 -2- 26/06/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) is filed by the appellants/Driver and Owner of the offending vehicle challenging the award dated 23.07.2019 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (CG) in Claim Case No.56 of 2017. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, pleading therein that on 13/11/2016 at about 5:00 p.m., near the house of Banshilal Yadav in village Budhar, Ahirapara, non-applicant No.2 while driving the vehicle Mahindra Scorpio No. CG 15-B-9445 rashly and negligently caused an accident in which minor Arth Rajwade aged about 4 years, who was riding on the offending vehicle, suffered serious injuries on the head and other parts of the body, he was declared dead in the hospital. Deceased Arth Rajwade was a healthy, handsome and intelligent. Due to his death, the applicants have suffered a serious loss. Claimants have prayed for compensation of Rs. 41,00,000/- along with interest from non-applicants. 4. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 in their written statement have denied almost all the facts pleaded in the claim application and stated that on the date of incident, the offending vehicle was insured with non- -3- applicant No.3, hence if the Claims Tribunal determines any kind of compensation in favor of the applicants, then the liability to pay the same will be of non-applicant No.3. 5. Non-applicant No. 3 in its written statement stated that no accident has happened with the offending vehicle. On the date of the accident, the vehicle owner/non-applicant No. 1 was getting the offending vehicle driven by non-applicant No. 2 without a valid and effective driving license, which is a violation of the condition of the insurance policy. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation amount. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, caused accident, in which minor Arth Rajwade aged about 4 years sustained grievous injuries and died. Recording a finding that breach of the conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, learned Claims Tribunal held non-applicants liable to pay amount of compensation to claimants, calculated and awarded total sum of Rs.5,30,000/- 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that respondents/claimant had filed application seeking compensation of amount under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988. Learned Claims Tribunal has also considered the amended provision under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988. However, amount of compensation is awarded more than what is fixed under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 of Rs.5,00,000/-. Amount of -4- compensation awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.5,30,000/- and, therefore, amount of compensation be reduced to Rs.5,00,000/-. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2/claimants opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and would submit that claim application is filed under Section 166 of the Act of 1988, however, for computing the amount of compensation, learned Claims Tribunal has taken help of provision of Schedule under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 and, therefore, submission of learned counsel for the appellant is incorrect. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of the claim case. 10. In para-1 of the impugned award, there is specific mention as to the provision under which application seeking compensation is filed i.e. under Section 166 of the Act of 1988. Perusal of the claim application available on record would also show that application was filed under Section 166 of the Act of 1988. 11. In the aforementioned facts of the case, submission of learned counsel for the appellant that application was filed under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 is not sustainable and accordingly it is repelled. 12. In para-16 of the impugned award, learned Claims Tribunal for considering the amount of compensation to be awarded has taken note of the provision under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 wherein by way of amendment amount of compensation in a death case is fixed Rs.5,00,000/- -5- 13. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation against death of a child as Rs.5,00,000/- and further awarded Rs.15,000/- towards 'loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral expenses', which in the facts of the case, in view of the provision under which the application is filed i.e. under Section 166 of the Act of 1988, cannot be said to be erroneous. 14. For the foregoing discussions, I do not find any merit in the appeal. Appeal is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen