1 2025:CGHC:52422 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1773 of 2024  Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited First Floor, Saluja Complex, Durg Road, Ganjpara, Balod Tehsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Harish S/o Ramdayal Joshi Aged About 50 Years R/o Rudra Post Tehsil And P.S. Gundardehi, District Balod Chhattisgarh 2. Kamta Prasad S/o Dukhit Ram Aged About 42 Years R/o Mahud, Post Haldi, P.S. Gunderdehi, District Balod Chhattisgarh 3. Smt.Rajkumari Jain W/o Late Prakash Chand Jain Aged About 62 Years Resident And Post Sirabhata, Tehsil And P.S. Gunderdehi, District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate For Respondents : None, though served. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.10 .2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. The appellant/Insurance company has challenged the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, District Balod, in Claim Case No. 03/2022 dated 04.04.2024, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 19,82,219/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on account of injury sustained by respondent No. 1/Harish. 3. Facts in brief are that on on 24.05.2021 at about 5:00 am, the claimant was taking tea near Bhanu Hotel, Gunderdehi, and at the same time, SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.10.29 16:28:01 +0530 2 respondent No. 2 driving the Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. C.G. 07 AL 9989, rashly and negligently dashed the injured, consequently, he sustained injuries including fracture on right thigh, knee and left arm and also sustained injuries over various parts of body. The claimant was taken to Government Hospital, Rajnandgaon, and thereafter, he was referred to Mekahara Hospital, Raipur where he remained hospitalized from 24.05.2021 to 07.06.2021. He filed claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 35,00,000/-. The Insurance company filed reply and denied averments made in claim application. The learned Tribunal framed issues; parties led evidence, and thereafter, award was passed. 4. Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate would submit that though the Medical Board issued disability certificate Ex. A/64 assessing disability to the extent of 65%, but the learned Tribunal considered it 100%, thus, committed error of law. He would further submit that the driver of the offending vehicle was acquitted by the competent Criminal Court, and therefore, the involvement of vehicle in accident is doubtful. 5. I have heard Mr. Deshmukh at length and perused the record. 6. The Insurance company has not disputed the factum of accident. According to the averments made in claim application and evidence led by the claimant, on 24.05.2021 at about 5:00 am claimant was dashed by the driver of the offending vehicle. 7. Admittedly, injured was indulged in collecting scrap/junk and it was only source of his income. According to the disability certificate Ex. A/64, the extent of disability as found by the Medical Board is 65%. As per the radiography report Ex. A/14, a crush injury was noted over the left elbow, exposing the underlying muscle. There was tenderness and dislocation of 3 the left elbow joint with disruption of the superior radio-ulnar joint. The report further reveals fractures of the right thigh and knee, along with amputation of the left hand. As the injured used to collect junk/scrap from the locality; therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the functional disability 100%. 8. It was next argued by Mr. Deshmukh that driver of the offending vehicle was acquitted by the learned Criminal Court. There may be various reasons to pass judgment of acquittal. As evident from the judgment passed by the learned Criminal Court, the witnesses did not support the case of prosecution and they were declared hostile; therefore, the respondent No. 2 was acquitted and on this ground alone, it cannot be presumed that the respondent No. 2 was not driving offending vehicle or he was not involved in the accident at all. 9. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I am not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed, at admission stage itself. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant