1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 12 of 2020 1 - Vaman Banjare @ Aman S/o Madhodas Banjare Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Kanharpuri, Ward No. 33, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh...(Claimant), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Pawan Kumar Tandan S/o Amruram Tandan R/o Village Makkatola, Police Station Chichola, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh....(Driver Of Tata As - Cg-08-B-2335), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Santosh Kumar Banjare S/o Firturam Banjare R/o Village Makkatola, Police Station Chichola, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh......(Owner Of Tata As - Cg-08-B-2335), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office - Near Railway Station , Rajnandgaon , Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh...(Insurance Company), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. M. Asha, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 12/09/2025 This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) challenging the award dated 04.09.20189 passed in Claim Case No. 118/2015 by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Rajanandgaon, CG. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs. 2 6,00,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 15,000/- in favour of the appellant/claimant on account of sustained by the appellant/claimant in an accident that took place on 24.02.2015 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle TATA AS bearing registration No. CG 08 B 2335 driven by respondent No. 1 / driver, owned by respondent No. 2 / owner and insured with the respondent No. 3 / insurance company. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant/claimant has suffered severe injuries and he spent huge amount on his treatment, he remained in hospital for a considerable period of time. Apart from this, he submits that the compensation awarded on all other heads is also on the lower side which requires suitable enhancement. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 supports the impugned award and submits that no permanent disability was caused only simple injury were found, no fracture was found and he was treated in the government hospital. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The appellant/claimant has not suffered any permanent disablement or grievous injuries. The bills submitted by him has been duly considered by the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal has also found that the appellant is performing his daily day routine without any difficulty. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned award warranting interference by this Court. 6. As a consequences, appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan