1 2025:CGHC:34979 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2306 of 2019 1. Ramavtar Patel S/o Ramesh Singh Patel Aged About 38 Years R/o. Village Pakariya, Post Barpali, Police Station Urga, Tahsil And District Korba (CG). (Owner) (Non-applicant No. 2) ... Appellant versus 1. Sanjay Sahu S/o Late Chamaru Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o. Bankimongara, Banki Side (Near Hospital), Police Station Bankimongara, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 2. Ram Kumar Patel S/o Amrit Lal Aged About 28 Years R/o. Nawapara, Police Station Urga, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Non-Applicant No. 1). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. S.P. Sannat, Advocate For Respondent No.1. : Ms. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.K. Pate, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 22/7/2025 1. Appellant-owner has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 13.11.2019 passed by learned Additional Tribunal to the Court of learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 Katghora, District Korba (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.16/2018 by which the Claims Tribunal has allowed in part application of claimant for grant of compensation, awarded a sum of Rs.3,81,815/- and fastened liability upon non-applicants, jointly and severally, to satisfy the impugned award. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/- under various heads, for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident dated 30.9.2017, which was caused by motorcycle bearing registration No.CG12-M-6762 (for short ‘the offending vehicle’), due to rash and negligent driving by its driver, non-applicant No.1. It was averred in the application that due to injuries sustained in said accident, left eye of claimant was totally damaged and his jaw was also fractured. 3. Non-applicant No.1 and 2, driver and owner of offending vehicle, filed joint reply to the claim application denying the averments made therein. It was pleaded that on the basis of mutual settlement arrived at between the parties, an amount of Rs.60,000/- has already been paid on 8.10.2018. Since 3 the matter is amicably settled between the parties, therefore, claim application filed on behalf of claimant is liable to be dismissed. 4. Upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence brought on record (oral and documentary both) by the respective parties, the Claims Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1 in which claimant suffered permanent disability and accordingly, allowed application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.3,81,815/- and fastened liability upon non-applicants, jointly and severally, to satisfy the impugned award. 5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that accident occurred on account of self-negligence of the claimant, but said aspect of the matter was not considered by the Claims Tribunal. He next contended that amount of compensation awarded is much higher than what claimant is entitled for. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 would argue that in the accident, claimant has lost his right eye and he also expended huge amount on his treatment. She submits that the Claims Tribunal ought to have awarded much more amount under the head of disability suffered by claimant. 4 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and perused the record. 8. It is not in dispute that claimant lost his right eye in the accident and expended Rs.1,60,177/- for his treatment, which is proved by documents filed as Ex.P-9 to Ex.P-64. Claims Tribunal awarded lump sum amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation towards loss of one eye, which in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be excessive. In fact, the claimant could have been entitled for much more compensation than what is awarded to him. The Claims Tribunal has also taken note of the fact that after suffering injuries and loosing right eye, wife of claimant left him and therefore, an amount of Rs.20,000/- has been awarded towards consortium. Award of total compensation of Rs.3,81,815/- cannot be said to be excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Hence, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. The appeal being devoid of any merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-