-1- NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 486 of 2024 1 - Chainu Prasad Sinha S/o Tirath Ram Sinha Aged About 45 Years R/o House No. 569, Ward No. 18, Thanoud, Chowki Anjora, P.S. Pulgaon, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.),...(Claimant) ... Appellant versus 1 - Mangal Singh S/o Sukhpal Singh Aged About 39 Years Through Venture Supply Chain Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office K-2/832, Khasra No. 834, Mata Chowk, Mahipalpur, Delhi ,..(Driver) 2 - Venture Supply Chain Pvt. Ltd. Registered Office K-2/832, Khasra No. 834, Mata Chowk, Mahpalpur, Delhi, Siddhi Road, Near Mahalxmi Dharamkanta, Khidki Dhola, Haryana Mudgaon,..(Owner) 3 - The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office, Parakh Bhawan, Near Ujala Bhawan, Station Road, Durg, P.S. Mohan Nagar, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.),... (Insurer) ... Respondents For Appellant/Claimant : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate For Respondents No.3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 27.10.2025 1) Heard. 2) The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against an award passed by the learned Forth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No.465/2022 dated 13.12.2023 whereby, the learned Tribunal has REKHA SINGH -2- passed an award to the tune of Rs.35,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum on account of damage caused to the vehicle. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would submit that on 23.02.2022, the appellant along with a pillion rider namely, Abhinandan Gond were going from Somni to Dewada on a motorcycle. He would further submit that respondent No.1 while driving a truck bearing registration No.HR55/AD/2083 rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle, resulting into accident and injuries to the claimant. Mr. Sahu would contend that the motorcycle was fully damaged on account of accident. He would further contend that the claimant filed a claim case claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs.3,10,000/- on account of vehicle damage and injuries sustained by him. Mr. Sahu would submit that the claimant presented bills issued by mechanic vide Ex.P/11, Ex.P/13 & Ex.P/15 and also examined mechanic namely, Jagjeevan Sahu (AW2), who proved Ex.P/11, Ex.P/13 & Ex.P/15 bills to the sum of Rs.80,250/-. He would argue that the learned Tribunal has awarded sum of Rs.35,000/- against damage caused to the vehicle and discarded the documentary and oral evidence. He would pray to enhance the compensation. 4) On the other hand, Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Sahu. He would submit that the motorcycle was purchased by the claimant in the year 2012 and it met with an accident in the year 2022 -3- after 10 years. He would contend that there was considerable depreciation to the value of the vehicle. He would further contend that though the claimant adduced bills issued by the mechanic Ex.P/11, Ex.P/13 & Ex.P/15 but failed to submit bills towards purchase of its parts. He would also contend that the learned Tribunal has considered this aspect and awarded a fair sum of Rs.35,000/-. With regard to injury, Mr. Gupta would submit that the claimant failed to establish the fact that any bodily injury was sustained by him. He would lastly submit that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6) A perusal of the record would show that no plea with regard to depreciation of the motorcycle was taken by the Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal and this issue is being raised for the first time before this Court and therefore, same cannot be accepted. 7) The bills Ex.P/11, Ex.P/13 & Ex.P/15 would show that the vehicle was repaired by mechanic namely, Jagjeevan Sahu (AW2) and valid bills were issued. It is not necessary for the mechanic to issue separate bills against purchase of parts of the motorcycle and therefore, the learned Tribunal committed error of law while discarding the bills placed on record by the claimant. The insurance company could not lead evidence to establish that the bills presented by the claimant were forged or parts -4- of the motorcycle were not replaced. 8) Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, the appeal preferred by the claimant is partly allowed and the insurance company is directed to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- against vehicle damage. As the amount of Rs.35,000/- has already been awarded by the learned Tribunal, the claimant shall be entitled to receive a sum of Rs.45,000/- in addition and the said amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha