1 2025:CGHC:31280 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1912 of 2018 1 - Mayank Verma S/o Ravindranath Verma, Aged About 18 Years R/o Vill.- Girondh, P.S. Dharsiva, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Pitamber Vishwakarma S/o Basant Vishwakarma, R/o Vill.- Teela, P.S. Nayapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.................Driver Of Pick- Up Bearing No.- C.G.04 Lb- 3271), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kamal Narayan Lodhi, S/o Laxman Lodhi, R/o Ward No. 3, Lodhipara Aarang, P.S. Aarang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.............. (Owner Of Pick-Up Bearing No.- C.G.-04 Lb-3271), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager (Mandal No. 1), United India Insurance Co. Ltd Kachahari Chowk Jail Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh.................(Insurer Of Pick-Up Bearing No.- C.G.-04 Lb-3271), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shashi Bhusan Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 & 2 : None. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 08/07/2025 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 29.07.2018 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur District – Raipur (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 731/2016 whereby compensation of Rs. 3,15,850/- with interest @ 9% per annum, in favour of the appellant/claimant has been awarded. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the appellant is aged about 18 years and a student of engineering has filed a claim petition before the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.), seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.14,70,000/- for injuries sustained in a road accident that occurred on 13.07.2016 at around 12:30 PM near Village Dhaneli, R.K. Petrol Pump under P.S. Dharsiva, District Raipur. At the time, he was riding pillion on a motorcycle with his friend Suresh Soni when a rashly and negligently driven pick-up vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04-LB-3271, driven by Non-Applicant No.1 Pitamber Vishwakarma, hit them, causing the appellant grievous head injuries and multiple fractures in his left leg. An FIR was 3 registered against the driver under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the IPC and a charge sheet was filed. The learned tribunal framed five issues for consideration, and after evaluating the evidence and documents, partially allowed the appellant’s claim by passing the award on 29.08.2018 holding that the accident vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 and was driven negligently by the defendant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,15,850/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the awarded compensation by the Tribunal on the other heads 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. 4. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 3 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 5. None for the respondent Nos. 1 to 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 4 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. 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. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that doctor has not been examined in this case. Therefore, considering the material available on record, the Tribunal found that the appellant sustained only simply injury and not sustained any fracture or permanent disability. Therefore, awarded an amount of Rs. 2,45,832/- towards treatment, Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and agony, Rs. 10,000/- towards travelling and Rs. 10,000/- towards diet. Thus, a total compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,15,832/- has been awarded by the tribunal. Looking to the overall material and evidence on the record, the finding of the Tribunal is just and proper and no interference is required. 9. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed. 10. Record of the tribunal be sent back along with copy of this order forthwith for necessary information and action. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat