1 2025:CGHC:54219 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 759 of 2018 1 - Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani S/o Sukhnandan Prasad Kesharwani Aged About 40 Years Caste Gupta, R/o Village Danikundi, Post Marwahi, P.S. And Tehsil Marwahi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Claimant), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Jagdish Prasad S/o Samaylal Panika Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Madna, P.S. Gaurella, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Driver), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Gopika Prasad Tiwari S/o Pannalal Tiwari Aged About 75 Years R/o Badhri, P.S. Semriya, District Rewa (M.P.) Presently Residing At Samta Nagar, Gaurella, P.S. Gaurella, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Owner), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Manager, H.D.F.C. General Insurance Co. Ltd. 6th Floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri, Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400059 (Insurance Company), District : Mumbai, Maharashtra ... Respondent(s) MAC No. 761 of 2018 1 - Krishna Kumar Gupta S/o Phoolchand Gupta Aged About 30 Years Caste Gupta, R/o Village Singhora (Podi), P.S. And Tehsil Jaitahri, District Annuppur (M.P.) (Claimant), District : Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Jagdish Prasad S/o Samaylal Panika Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Madna, P.S. Gaurella, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Driver), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Gopika Prasad Tiwari S/o Pannalal Tiwari Aged About 75 Years R/o Badhri, P.S. Semriya, District Rewa (M.P.) Presently Residing At Samta Nagar, Gaurella, P.S. Gaurella, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Owner), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Manager, H.D.F.C. General Insurance Co. Ltd. 6th Floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri, Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400059 (Insurance Company), District : Mumbai, Maharashtra ... Respondent(s) Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate and Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate for their respective parties. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06/11/2025 1. Since the factual matrix and the core issues involved in both appeals are identical and arise from the same accident dated 19.05.2015 passed in Claim Cases No.24/2015 and 25/2015, the appeals have been clubbed, heard together, and are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, MAC No.759 of 2018 is treated as the lead case. 2. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor 3 Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant/claimant for enhancement against the award dated 27.03.2018 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pendra Road, Bilaspur (C.G.), in Claim Case No.25/2015 whereby no amount of compensation has been awarded in favour of the appellant/claimant. 3. Brief facts of the case, is that, the claimant instituted a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on 19.05.2015, asserting that on the said date, he was traveling on a motorcycle bearing registration no. CG 10 EQ 1850, owned by his brother-in-law, Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, towards Village Danikundi. At about 12:30 p.m., near Village Arbhar, a tractor bearing registration no. MP 17 AA 7283, driven rashly and negligently by non-applicant no.1, collided with the claimant’s motorcycle, resulting in grievous injuries to the claimant on his leg and other parts of the body, as well as injuries to his brother-in- law. The claimant was immediately referred to Dr. B. Lalchandani Hospital, Bilaspur, where he incurred expenses amounting to Rs.46,000/- towards treatment. The claimant further asserted that he incurred Rs.5,000/- towards preliminary treatment, Rs.3,000/- for transportation, Rs.5,000/- for treatment at CIMS, Bilaspur, Rs.500/- for transportation from CIMS to Dr. B. Lalchandani Hospital, Rs.42,400/- for medicines, Rs.8,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.35,000/- towards transportation between his village and Bilaspur, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of income during 4 treatment, and Rs.60,000/- towards physical and mental agony, claiming a total compensation of Rs.2,55,000/- from the respondents jointly and severally. The respondents no.1 and 2 filed their written statement denying the occurrence of the accident and contending that respondent no.1 was not driving the offending vehicle, further alleging that the claimant himself was negligent and had not sustained any injuries requiring treatment. Respondent no.3 also denied liability, contending that the offending vehicle was not insured at the relevant time. The learned Tribunal, however, disbelieved the evidence of eyewitness Inamul Ansari and held that the alleged accident did not involve a tractor, rather observing that it appeared to be a collision between two motorcycles. The Tribunal’s findings were primarily based on conjecture and surmise, disregarding material evidence such as the charge sheet wherein Jagdish Prasad, the driver of the tractor bearing no. MP 17 AA 7283, was arrayed as an accused under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A IPC, and the fact that the said tractor had been seized by the police on 20.05.2015 along with the motorcycles. The claimant and other witnesses, namely Rajesh Kesharwani, Ramesh Basor, and Inamul Ansari, had consistently corroborated the occurrence of the accident, and the claimant’s medical examination conducted on 19.05.2015 confirmed injuries sustained during the incident. Despite this corroborative evidence, the learned Tribunal erred in discarding the testimony of the witnesses and in arriving at a perverse and 5 illegal finding contrary to the evidence on record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant respectfully submits that the learned Tribunal has committed a grave error in dismissing the claim petition despite clear and consistent evidence proving that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor bearing registration no. MP 17 AA 7283 by respondent no.1. The Tribunal’s findings are perverse, contrary to the evidence on record, and based on mere conjecture. The appellant has duly produced the charge sheet, medical records, and witness statements establishing the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained. The evidence of the appellant and eyewitnesses has been wrongly discarded without valid justification. The appellant also proved the expenses incurred on medical treatment, transportation, loss of income, and pain and suffering, which remain unrebutted. Hence, it is humbly submitted that the impugned award be set aside and the appellant be granted just and reasonable compensation as claimed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company respectfully submits that it is not liable to indemnify or pay any compensation to the claimant as the offending vehicle bearing registration no. MP 17 AA 7283 was not duly insured with the answering respondent at the time of the alleged accident. The insurance company further submits that the claimant has failed to 6 prove the involvement of the said vehicle in the alleged accident and that the findings of the learned Tribunal holding that the accident did not occur due to the tractor are in accordance with the evidence on record. It is further submitted that there is no cogent or reliable evidence to establish rash or negligent driving on the part of respondent no.1, nor any valid proof of medical treatment, expenditure, or loss as claimed by the appellant. The insurance company, therefore, contends that it bears no liability whatsoever under law to pay any compensation and prays that the appeal filed by the claimant be dismissed as being devoid of merit. 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, nor a Bonanza. 8. Upon careful examination of the record, it is evident that the learned Tribunal, after evaluating the evidence on record, has recorded a finding that no injury was caused to the claimants and expressed doubts about the involvement of the offending vehicle. In the absence of any finding that the insurance policy was breached, there is nothing on record warranting interference by 7 this Court. The Tribunal’s conclusions are based on its assessment of evidence and credibility of witnesses, which falls within its domain. 9. In view of the above, no merit is found in the appeals. The appeals are therefore dismissed, and the award dated 27.03.2018 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pendra Road, Bilaspur (C.G.), in Claim Cases No. 25/2015 and 24/2015 are hereby affirmed. Certified Copy as per rules. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena