1 2025:CGHC:52849 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 110 of 2022 1 - Smt. Shailendri W/o D.S. Keskar Aged About 49 Years R/o H.No. 146-H, Civil Lines, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh ( Mother Of Deceased ), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - D.S. Keskar S/o Shri P. Keskar Aged About 51 Years R/o H.No. No. 146-H, Civil Lines, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh ( Father Of Deceased), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Parisha ( Minor) D/o Late Rajeshwari Aged About 2 Years Through- Guardian D.S. Keskar S/o Shri P. Keskar S/o Shri P. Keskar, Aged About 51 Years, R/o H. No. 146-H, Civil Lines, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh ( Applicant/ Claimant No. 2 ) ( Ku. Parisha Pandey D/o Pradeep Pandey, Aged About 2 Years, R/o Nayapara, Geedam, P.S. Geedam, District- Dantewada, Chhattisgarh Is Wrongly Mentioned Hence Corrected As Above), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - Rajeev Ranjan Singh S/o Late Dameshwari Singh Aged About 26 Years R/o House Of Shyam Gupta, Kumhar Para, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh ( Driver Of Vehicle), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.10.30 14:27:03 +0530 2 2 - Dilip Kumar Gupta S/o Ram Sunder Gupta Aged About 38 Years R/o Janakpur, Ward No. 10, Kanker, District- Kanker, Chhattisgarh ( Owner Of Vehicle), District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 3 - I>co-Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited, Through- Branch Manager, Shop No. 1, Mahaveer Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ( Insurer Of Vehicle ), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Pradeep Pandey S/o Aditya Prasad Pandey Aged About 29 Years R/o Nayapara, Geedam, Police Station Geedam, District- Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ( Applicant/claimant No.1 ), District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Shri Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Shri P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Shri Pravin Kumar Tulsyan and Shri Abhishek Nirala, Advocates Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 29/10/2025 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to award/order dated 11.12.2021 passed by the National Lok Adalat, Bench No.3, 2nd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, South Bastar Dantewada (Chhattisgarh) in Claim Case No.37 of 2017 (Pradeep Pandey and another v. Rajeev Ranjan Singh and others). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners No.1 and 2 are the parents and petitioner No.3 is the minor daughter of late Rajeshwari (since deceased), who met with an accident on 26.2.2017 and passed away. A claim application under 3 Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the MV Act’) was Bled before 2nd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh by one Pradeep Pandey claiming himself to be the husband of deceased Rajeshwari and petitioner No.3 herein being daughter of the deceased. In the said claim application, driver, owner, insurance company and petitioners No.1 and 2 herein were arrayed as respondents. He submits that during pendency of the claim application, the claim application was compromised and award/order dated 11.12.2021 was passed by the learned National Lok Adalat, Bench No.3, South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. He further submits that during apportionment of the award amount, the insurance company was directed to deposit Rs.10,00,000 as compensation on account of death of Rajeshwari. By the impugned award/order, during the course of apportionment of the said amount, learned National Lok Adalat directed that out of the sum of Rs.10,00,000, 25% amount shall be paid to respondent No.4, 45% amount shall be given to petitioner No.3 and 15% each shall be given to petitioners No.1 and 2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that respondent No.4 is not the husband of deceased Rajeshwari and, therefore, he was not entitled to any apportionment of the compromised award. He submits that during his examination before the Claims Tribunal, respondent No.4 has admitted that he has married to one Jyoti in the year 2019. Therefore, the learned National Lok Adalat has committed an error in granting 4 compensation of 25% in favour of respondent No.4. He further submits that the share which has been apportioned in favour of respondent No.4 ought to have been given to petitioner No.3. Therefore, the impugned award/order may be modiBed to that extent. 4. Opposing the above submission made on behalf of the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that in compliance with the award dated 11.12.2021 the insurance company has already deposited the amount and the dispute is inter se between the petitioners and respondent No.4. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that the claim application under Section 166 of the MV Act was Bled by respondent No.4 being the husband and petitioner No.3 being the daughter of deceased Rajeshwari. In the said application, petitioners No.1 and 2 herein were arrayed as respondents No.4 and 5 and they entered into compromise with the insurance company and also Blled up the docket containing their signatures, which is apparent from page No.16 of the writ petition. Apart from this, he submits that there is no dispute that respondent No.4 is the husband of deceased Rajeshwari and, therefore, he was also entitled to certain share in the compensation so awarded, which has rightly been apportioned by the learned National Lok Adalat. 6. I have heard the rival contentions put-forth on behalf of the parties and perused the material available with due care. 5 7. There is no dispute to the fact that deceased Rajeshwari was the mother of petitioner No.3 and daughter of petitioners No.1 and 2 herein. The dispute which the petitioners are raising is that respondent No.4 is not the husband of deceased Rajeshwari. Perusal of the record indicates that the claim application was Bled by respondent No.4 along with petitioner No.3 herein and from the evidence which has been led before the learned Claims Tribunal it does not appear that respondent No.4 was not married with deceased Rajeshwari. Rather, no hesitation was raised by petitioners No.1 and 2 herein while Blling up the docket indicating therein that respondent No.4 was not entitled to any share in the compensation awarded. Even while the order of apportionment was passed by the learned National Lok Adalat, it does not appear that such an objection was raised by petitioners No.1 and 2 with regard to apportionment. Rather, they were represented through a counsel and petitioners No.1 and 2 themselves put their signatures in the compromise docket and, therefore, this Court does not Bnd any illegality or irregularity in the impugned award/order. 8. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any earlier granted, shall stand vacated. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Gopal