1 2025:CGHC:54484 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 769 of 2017 Lakesh S/o Bhagwat Tarak, Aged About 20 Years R/o Raipura, Police Station D.D.Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...............Claimant, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant Versus 1 - Rohit S/o Punit Sahu, R/o Sirrikala, Police Station Rajim, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, At Present Address C/o Devendra Pandey S/o Jamuna Prasad Pandey, Punjabi Para, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh .............Driver Of Mini Bus No. C.G.06 C 2111, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Devendra Pandey S/o Jamuna Das Pandey, R/o Punjabi Para, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh .............Owner Of Mini Bus No. C.G.06 C 2111, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.1, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Jail Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh .............Insurer Of Mini Bus No. C.G.06 C 2111, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Shatrughan Lal Jalkshatri S/o Heeruram Jalkshatri, R/o Kirvai, Police Station Rajim, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh .............Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G.04 C 2894, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Ifco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited, Through Incharge Officer, Ifco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Lal Ganga Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 Shopping Mall, G.E.Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh .............Insurer Of Vehicle No. C.G.04 C 2894, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents MAC No. 817 of 2017 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Division Number 1, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Jail Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Insurer Of Mini Bus No. C. G. 06- C-2111 , Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 1 - Lakesh S/o Bhagwat Tarak, Aged About 20 Years R/o Raipura Thana D. D. Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Rohit S/o Punit Sahu, R/o Sirrikala, Thana Rajim, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Devendra Pandey, S/o Jamuna Das Pandey, R/o Panjabi Para Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4 - Shatrughan Lal Jalkshatri, S/o Heeruram Jalshatri Village Kirvai Thana Rajim, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Owner Of Vehicle No. C. G. 04-Cn-2894, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Incharge Officer, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Lal Ganga Shoping Mall, G. E. Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Insurer Of Vehicle No. C. G. 04- C.N.-2894, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Appellant/Claimant : None. For Respective Respondents. : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocates and Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate. 3 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 07/11/2025 1. Since the factual matrix and the core issues involved in both appeals are identical and arise from the same impugned order dated the award dated 15.02.2017 passed by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal of 2nd Additional Judge, Raipur, (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 241/2012 whereby compensation of Rs. 2,25,130/- with interest @ 6% per annum, in favour of the claimant(s) has been awarded. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the on 20.08.2007 at about 11:00 A.M., the offending vehicle, a Mini Bus bearing registration No. C.G.06 C/2111, being driven by respondent No.2 – Rohit, allegedly without a valid permit, met with an accident in the area of Shyam Nagar, Sursabandha, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Rajim, District Raipur. The said Mini Bus collided with a motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G.04/C.N.-2894, which was being driven by the claimant–injured. As a result of the said collision, the claimant sustained injuries. It is the case of the appellant–Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal erred in exonerating the owner and insurer of the motorcycle No. C.G.04/C.N.-2894 and in fastening liability upon the Insurance Company of the Mini Bus. It is further contended that the Mini Bus was being operated without a valid permit and that its driver, respondent No.2, did not possess a valid and effective driving 4 license at the time of the accident; hence, there was a clear breach of policy conditions, rendering the Insurance Company not liable for payment of compensation. It is also urged that the claimant himself, who was driving the motorcycle, contributed to the occurrence of the accident by his negligent driving, and therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No.3 requires reconsideration. The appellant has further contended that the Tribunal erred in exonerating respondent Nos.4 and 5, being the owner and insurer of the motorcycle, and in awarding excessive compensation under paragraph 25 of the impugned award. It is also relevant to note that in respect of the same accident, an earlier award was passed by the Tribunal on 31.03.2009, against which MAC No.1259/2009 was preferred before this Hon’ble High Court, and by order dated 01.11.2012, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication. Hence this appeal. 3. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,25,130/- towards medical expenses, Rs.2,08,130/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 5,000/- and towards future aspect, Rs. 12,000/-. Thus, a total compensation of Rs.2,25,130/- has been awarded in favor of the appellant/claimant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,25,130/- 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 5 the Tribunal 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. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company opposes the same and submits that the offending Mini Bus bearing registration No. C.G.06 C/2111 was being operated without a valid permit at the time of the accident, as proved by the testimony of RTO witness Shri Umashankar recorded on 15.12.2016 and supported by Exhibits D-2C and D-3. It was further contended that the driver of the said vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license, amounting to a clear breach of policy conditions, and therefore, the appellant cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. Counsel also argued that the claimant himself, who was driving the motorcycle No. C.G.04/C.N.-2894, was negligent and contributed to the accident, and that the Tribunal erred in exonerating the owner and insurer of the said motorcycle. It was lastly submitted that the Tribunal has awarded excessive compensation, which deserves appropriate reduction. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, 6 nor a Bonanza. 8. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hare Krushna Mahanta vs. Himadari Sahu & Another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 262 has observed as under:- “9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is borne from the record that the Claimant-Appellant had agreed on the additional consolidated sum granted by the High Court. It is imperative for this Court, however, to reiterate that despite such consent, the objective when granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is to ensure just and fair compensation is paid to the aggrieved party. This came to be reiterated by this Court recently in Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto reported in (2023) 1 SCC 204, wherein it was observed:” "17. The Tribunal/Court ought to award "just" compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the claim petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount." 10. From the perusal of the record, it appears that all the relevant documents have been duly exhibited by the claimants and the entire set of documents was placed before the Tribunal. Although 7 the Tribunal, while passing the award, has not specifically referred to each document, it is evident that the same were duly considered while arriving at the computation of compensation. Therefore, the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the insurance company do not merit acceptance. Consequently, the appeal filed by the insurance company is liable to be, and is hereby, dismissed. 11. So far as the claimants appeal is concerned, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact regarding the injuries sustained by the claimant a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering and further a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities and Rs. 50,000/- towards future treatment is hereby enhanced. Consequently, the appeal of the claimants is allowed in part. The claimant(s) shall be entitled to Rs.1,33,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. 12. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. No order as to costs. Sd/- Ss Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U. K. Raju