1 / 5 2025:CGHC:16389 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M A C No. 1 of 202 0 1. Smt. Aasha Banjare W/o Late Devendra Banjare Aged About 27 Years 2. Minor Ku. Yogita Banjare D/o Late Devendra Banjare Aged About 6 Years 3. Minor Ku. Yogmaya Banjare D/o Late Devendra Banjare Aged About 3 Years Appellants No. 2 & 3 are Minor through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Asha Banjare W/o Late Devendra Banjare 4. Thanu Banjare S/o Late Bishoha Banjare Aged About 62 Years 5. Kejabai W/o Thanudas Banjare, Aged About 60 Years All appellants are R/o Village - Pinkapar, Tahsil and Thana - Dongargarh And District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants/ Claimants versus 1. Tikam Vaishnav S/o Shri Devendra Vaishnav Aged About 24 Years R/o Village - Bisahutola, Thana - Chhuria, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Vehicle No. C G - 08 - A B - 9989) 2. Mahesh Agrawal S/o Ramavatar Agrawal Aged About 55 Years R/o Kailash Nagar, Ward No. 29, Rajnandgaon (Aastha Road Lines, Mundra Dal Mill, Mathpara, Rajnandgaon Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Vehicle No. C G - 08 - A B - 9989) 3. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company, Beside L I C Office Near Railway Station Rajnandgaon Tahsil and District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Vehicle No. C G - 08 - A B - 9989) --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Anuj Kumar Pandey, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : None appeared, though served. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 08/04/2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 09.08.2019 passed by Learned Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 5 Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 141/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 5,25,000/- as compensation. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 04.04.2018 at about 04:45 pm, Devendra Banjare along with Girdhari Banjare was going to Rajnandgaon on a motorcycle, when they reached near National Highway Indamra, non-applicant No. 1/ driver of truck no. CG08-AB-9989 parked his truck in a rackless manner on the public road, due to which motorcycle of Devendra Banjare collided with the said truck, due to said accident he died on the spot. A report of the accident against non-applicant No. 1 was lodged in police station Lalbag for alleged offence under sections 283, 304-A of Indian Penal Code. 3. Appellants, wife, minor children and parents of deceased, filed an application under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 seeking ₹ 15,98,000/- as compensation pleading therein that on the date of accident deceased was about 35 years of age, was an able bodied person, used to do the work of saw machine mechanic, from which he was earning ₹ 4000/- per month and maintaining himself and his family. Due to the said accident, the appellants have suffered irreparable loss. Appellant No. 1 has been deprived of her marital happiness and his children have been deprived of their fatherhood happiness and Appellants No. 4 & 5 have been deprived of the love and care of their son. 4. Non-applicant No. 1/ Respondent No. 1 -Driver of the truck did not appear before the Claims Tribunal and he was proceeded ex parte. 5. Non-applicant No. 2/ Respondent No. 2 -owner of the truck submitted his reply and denying all the adverse pleading it is further stated that Non- 3 / 5 applicant No.1 is an experienced driver who drove vehicle following traffic rules. On the date of alleged accident, his truck No. CG-08-AB-9989, was insured with Non-applicant No.3- Insurance Company. In such a situation, non-applicant No.3/ Insurance Company will be liable for paying compensation, if any. It is stated that the appellants have filed a false case against non-applicant No.2 with the intention of obtaining compensation and have exaggerated the income of the deceased an prayed for dismissal of the the claim filed against non-applicant No.2. After filing his reply, non-applicant No. 2 remained absent from the proceedings, thereafter, he was also proceeded ex parte. 6. Non-applicant No.3-Insurance Company has submitted its reply denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application it was further stated that the appellants have filed the claim case on false grounds. There was negligence on the part of driver of the motorcycle himself. It is stated that, in the report lodged, the driver is informed to be an unknown person. On the date of accident, the driver of truck did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle, there is violation of the conditions of Insurance Policy, as such, in the said facts the application filed by appellants against non-applicant No. 3 is liable to be dismissed. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Devendra Banjare suffered grievous injuries due to rash and negligent driving of truck by non- applicant No. 1. It is further held that on the date of accident the truck CG08- AB-9989 was not insured and the contributory negligence was also not found to be proved and calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 5,25,000/- as total compensation with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application. 4 / 5 8. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal though has awarded sum of ₹ 5 Lakh as lumpsum compensation in an application filed against fatal accident arising out of motor vehicle accident under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 as also increased the compensation as provided under the IInd Schedule of Section 163-A by 5% considering the date of award passed after one year from the date of publishing of IInd Schedule, however, no amount of compensation is awarded on other conventional head, hence, the amount of award be suitably enhanced. 9. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would further submit that the application seeking compensation was filed under Section 163-A and the amount of compensation is strictly in accordance with the IInd Schedule as appended to the Act of 1988 and framed under Section 163-A. Under the IInd Schedule, there is no provision for awarding any other amount towards other conventional heads, hence, there is no merit in this appeal and it is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that the amount of compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal has already been satisfied by the Insurance Company. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record of claim case. 11. The short question involved in this appeal is only with respect to whether the appellants are entitled for the amount of compensation under other conventional heads when the application is filed under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988. It is settled law that when the application is filed under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988, learned Claims Tribunal has to pass award of compensation without there being any other prove to be produced by the claimants. The amount of compensation is to be awarded as per the IInd Schedule framed under Section 163-A. The IInd Schedule framed under 5 / 5 Section 163-A came to be amended w.e.f. 22.05.2018. In the amended schedule in fatal accident case, the compensation payable in case of death is mentioned as ₹ 5 Lakh. It further provides that the amount of compensation as mentioned under clause 1 of the IInd Schedule is to be increased by 5% annually. Learned Claims Tribunal has already considered the aforesaid clause as provided in IInd Schedule increasing the amount by 5% and awarded ₹ 25,000/- as compensation and the total compensation is ₹ 5,25,000/-. 12. In the aforementioned facts of the case, considering the fact that the application is filed under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 and learned Claims Tribunal has already awarded ₹ 5 Lakh as lumpsum compensation as mentioned in the IInd Schedule framed under Section 163-A and also awarded increased rate of 5% to the amount of compensation to the appellants, the amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal does not call for any interference of this Court so as to enhance the amount of compensation. 13. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for appellants as also any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn