1 2025:CGHC:30997 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 212 of 2018 1 - Dhanmet W/o W/o Jagat Ram Aged About 64 Years Caste Bargah, Occupation House Wife, R/o Village Parsapara, P. S. Jainagar, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. .................(Non- Applicant No. 2)., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Atwari W/o W/o Anup Singh, Aged About 50 Years Caste Gond, R/o Podipa, Post Kalyanpur, P. S. Jainagar, Tahsil And District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ......................(Applicants)., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mahendra S/o S/o Late Anup Singh Aged About 25 Years Caste Gond, R/o Podipa, Post Kalayanpur, P. S. Jainagar, Tahsil And District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ...................(Applicants)., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Anand Ram Bargarh, S/o S/o Late Jagatram Bargah, Aged About 42 Years Caste Bargah, Occupation Service (S.E.C.L). R/o Village Parsapara (Amapara), P. S. Jainagar, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. .......................(Non- Applicant No. 1)., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C. J. K. Rao, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ayush Lall, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Order Sheet 07/07/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.01 – an application for condonation of delay. 2. Upon due consideration and for the reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 30 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Heard on admission. 4. Admit. 5. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the present appellant against the award dated 14.09.2017 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur District Surajpur (C.G.), in Claim Case No.139/16, whereby the Tribunal has fastened the liability to pay the amount of award to the respondents/claimants to the tune of Rs.4,54,000/-. 6. Facts of the present case, in nutshell, are that on the date of the incident, 21.04.2015, at around 8:00 PM in the night, the deceased Anup Singh was standing and talking near the house of Nanka Gond in village Podipa, when Respondent No.3 Anand Ram Bargah, driving motorcycle number CG 15 CA 1063 (CD 3 Dawn) at a very high speed and in a negligent manner from the direction of Kalyanpur, hit Anup Singh from behind his back with great force. As a result, Anup Singh was thrown off and sustained serious injuries. He was taken for treatment to the District Hospital, Ambikapur, where he died during treatment on 22.04.2015. Due to the loss and damage caused by the said accident, the applicants have filed a claim for compensation before the Tribunal amounting to 26,54,600/- (Rupees Twenty- ₹ Six Lakhs Fifty-Four Thousand Six Hundred only) from the respondents. Hence this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in law in passing the impugned judgment and has wrongly appreciated the evidence on record. He further submits that the Tribunal did not afford the appellant any opportunity of hearing and wrongly fastened liability of Rs. 4,54,000/- upon the present appellant. It is also submitted that the award was passed while the appellant remained ex-parte and no written reply was filed on his behalf. Learned counsel further contends that the Tribunal awarded compensation on the higher side and incorrectly applied the multiplier. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned award (Annexure A/1) may be set aside and the appellant may be exonerated. 8. It is submitted by the respondents that the Claims Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and passed the award 4 strictly in accordance with law. The learned Tribunal has meticulously considered the documentary and oral evidence, including medical bills, wage loss certificates, and other relevant material, before arriving at the quantum of compensation. The contention that no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant is incorrect and misleading. The appellant was duly served with notices and summons, but she chose to remain ex- parte by not appearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal cannot be blamed for passing the award in the absence of the appellant’s presence or any written reply. Since the appellant failed to contest the claim despite proper service of notice, the Tribunal rightly proceeded ex-parte. This is in accordance with settled principles of law, wherein the claimant’s right to receive compensation cannot be stalled indefinitely due to the appellant’s non- cooperation. The multiplier and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal have been correctly applied and are neither excessive nor arbitrary. The liability has been rightly fastened upon the appellant as the vehicle was not insured. He goes on to submit that the vehicle was not insured as such the Tribunal has fastened the liability upon the owner of the vehicle/present appellant. In view of the above submissions, it is humbly prayed that the appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed and the award passed by the Claims Tribunal be upheld in the interest of justice. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and peruse the 5 documents available on record. Particularly the order impugned herein. 10. It is evident that the present appellant, despite due notice, failed to appear before the Claims Tribunal, remained ex-parte and not even submitted his written reply. The Tribunal was therefore justified in proceeding with the matter and deciding it on the basis of available evidence. The Tribunal has thoroughly appreciated the material on record and passed a reasoned award. The multiplier has been correctly applied and the compensation amount of Rs. 4,54,000/- awarded is fair, just, and not excessive. Importantly, the appellant has not disputed the fact that the offending vehicle was not insured on the date of the accident. In the absence of a valid insurance policy, the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability upon the owner/appellant. No ground has been made out warranting interference with the findings of the Tribunal. 11. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saxena ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA