1 2025:CGHC:55469 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1202 of 2018 1 - Branch Manager, Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited Dainik Bhaskar Complex, 5th Floor, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Tata S. No. Cg-06-Gd-7254), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Gopal Das Jangde S/o Barandas Jandge Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Godhi, Thana Mandir Hasaud, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. At Present - Village Kanpa, Thana Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Bhanu Verma, S/o Bhawar Singh Varma, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Amawash, Thana Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Tata S.No. Cg-06-Gd-7254), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Mahesh Kumar Nayak S/o Murlidhar Nayak, Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 2, Imlibhatha, Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Tata S.No. Cg-06-Gd-7254), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Advocate For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : None. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 13/11/2025 1. The present is Insurance Company’s appeal assailing the award dated 6.4.2018 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Claim Case No. H-98/2016, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,85,400/- with interest @ 6% per annum in favour of claimant/respondent No. 1 herein. 2. The claimant i.e. respondent No. 1 represented by Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Advocate have also filed a cross-objection seeking for enhancement of compensation. 3. Brief facts of the case, is that the appellant was the insurer of the vehicle Tata bearing No. CG-06-GD-7254 (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”), the respondent No. 1 was the claimant, and respondents No. 2 and 3 were the driver and owner of the said vehicle from whom compensation of Rs. 16,50,000/- was claimed on account of bodily injuries sustained in a road accident that occurred on 07.06.2015 at about 9:30 p.m. near Village Chherikhedi, Police Station Mandir Hasaud, Raipur. As per the averments in the claim petition, respondent No. 1 was traveling from Raipur to Village Godhi on his motorcycle bearing No. CG-04-KS-5628 when respondent No. 2, driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed into the claimant’s motorcycle, causing grievous injuries to his right leg, resulting in 3 permanent disability. It was further pleaded that the claimant remained hospitalized from 07.06.2015 to 13.07.2015, that he was 48 years old, working as a motor mechanic, and earning Rs. 300 per day. The accident was reported at Police Station Mandir Hasaud, where Crime No. 268/2015 was registered against respondent No. 2. Notices were issued to respondents No. 2 and 3 as well as to the appellant; respondents No. 2 and 3 filed their written statement denying all allegations and asserting that the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant and that respondent No. 2 possessed a valid and effective driving licence. The appellant also filed its written statement, denying the allegations and contending that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident, that the claimant himself was responsible, that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of about 117 days, and that no intimation regarding the accident or involvement of the vehicle was given under Sections 158(6) and 134(c) of the Act; the income and profession of the claimant were also denied. The Learned Tribunal framed various issues based on the pleadings of the parties and, after appreciating the evidence, documents, and materials placed on record, decided the issues against the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that a careful perusal of the evidence adduced in the claimant’s case reveals that the claimant initially did not mention the number of the offending vehicle, but subsequently developed his version 4 in the claim petition by introducing the registration number, rendering the claim itself doubtful. It is further submitted that the FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay of 107 days, which raises serious doubts regarding the genuineness of the alleged accident. From the evidence on record, it appears that the vehicle now alleged to be the offending vehicle was not involved in the incident, and the claimant, with an intent to secure compensation, has improperly lodged the FIR at a highly belated stage. Therefore, it is urged that the vehicle in question having no nexus with the alleged accident, the impugned award is wholly unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant/respondent No. 1 has supported the impugned award while simultaneously seeking enhancement of the compensation. He submits that the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the insurance company and has correctly held that the insurer is responsible for satisfying the award. However, with regard to the quantum of compensation, it is contended that the amount awarded is extremely meager and does not adequately reflect the nature and extent of the injuries and losses suffered by the claimant, and therefore, the compensation is liable to be suitably enhanced. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5 7. From a bare perusal of the record, it is evident that the FIR correctly mentions the registration number of the offending vehicle, thereby supporting the claimant’s version of events. It is further submitted that the statements recorded in the criminal proceedings cannot be relied upon in the motor accident claim case, as such proceedings are civil in nature and the findings or statements made in criminal cases are not binding upon civil adjudication, particularly in matters arising out of benevolent legislation like the Motor Vehicles Act. The evidence brought on record before the learned Claims Tribunal clearly demonstrates that the insurance company failed to adduce any cogent material to dispute or disprove the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the insurance company, and such well- reasoned findings do not warrant any interference. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company is liable to be and accordingly dismissed. Cross appeal/objection 9. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,19,400/- towards treatment expenses, Rs. 6,000/- towards loss of income for two months, Rs. 5,000/- towards transportation, Rs. 10,000/- towards special diet, Rs. 15,000/- towards nursing expenses, Rs. 25,000/- towards future medical treatment expenses and Rs. 5,000/- towards pain and suffering. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 6 3,85,400/- has been awarded in favor of the claimant/respondent No. 1. 10. Learned counsel for the claimant/respondent No. 1 submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,85,400/- 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 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. 11. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 12. None for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 14. 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, nor a Bonanza. 15. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of 7 awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 16. 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." 17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that a sum of Rs. 9,000/- towards loss of income for two months, Rs. 10,000/- towards transportation, Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 20,000/- towards attendant, Rs. 50,000/- towards future medical treatment 8 expenses, Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of amenities are hereby enhanced. 18. In the result, the cross appeal filed by the claimant/respondent No. 1 is partly allowed. The claimant/respondent No. 1 shall be entitled to Rs. 1,29,000/- 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. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat