1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1956 of 2018 1 - Rohit Oswal S/o Late Kanwarlal Jain Aged About 51 Years R/o House No. 504, B- Block Gokul Residency Shyam Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgah. ..........Res. No. 2 ...........Owner Of J. C. B., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Bhushan Sonwani S/o Nihoraram Sonwani Aged About 38 Years R/o Kachna, P. S. Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ..........Claimant, 2 - Dhelu Kumar @ Purshottam Sahu S/o Punuram Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Tharbada, P. S. Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. .........Driver Of J. C. B. 3 - Cholamandalam M M General Insurance Company Limited Through Manager, Near Life Insurance Corporation, Pandri, Vidhan Sabha Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ............Insurance Company, ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant :- Mrs. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 :- Mr. Arvind Panda, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ghanshaym Patel, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 04.07.2025 VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/owner of the vehicle assailing the award dated 01.09.2018 passed by the learned 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) passed in Claim Case No. 378/2014 whereby compensation of Rs.7,17,315/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its realisation was awarded in favour of the claimant/respondent No.1 and the liability was fastened upon the owner/appellant herein on the ground that the vehicle was being driven by an unauthorized person who did not possess a valid driving license. 2. As per averments made in the claim petition, the respondent No.1 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of ₹32,00,000/- for injuries sustained in a road accident on 25.03.2013. It is alleged that Respondent No.2, while driving a J.C.B. (Engine No.4H32051102037) (hereinafter called as ‘offending vehicle’) negligently and rashly on Old Dhamtari Road near Khopra Road, Abhanpur (Raipur), caused the accident in which Respondent No.1, who was riding a motorcycle behind the offending vehicle, suffered severe injuries to the knee, shoulder, and internal body parts. The claimant/respondent No.1 was hospitalized at Chhattisgarh Hospital and Research Centre until 05.04.2013. It is further alleged that the claimant/respondent No.1, who was employed as a Mason earning ₹300 per day and supporting a family 3 of six members and after the accident, he became dependent on others for movement. 3. The learned Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence led by both the parties, passed an award as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle submits that the driver of the vehicle, one Dinesh Kumar Tiwari, possessed a valid driving license, and had he been properly investigated, the liability would not have been fastened upon the owner. It is further contended that the police erroneously identified Dhelu Kumar/respondent No.2, the cleaner, as the driver, and the Tribunal wrongly based its finding on that premise. Counsel also argued that the compensation awarded, particularly the sum of ₹2,50,000/- towards future medical treatment, is exorbitant and contrary to settled principles of law. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company (Respondent No. 3) has submitted that from the evidence adduced, it is clearly established that one Dhelu Kumar was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident and he did not possess a valid driving license. The defense that the actual driver Dinesh Kumar Tiwari fled the scene is unsupported by credible evidence. Hence, the Tribunal rightly held that there was a breach of the insurance policy, and accordingly fastened liability on the owner of the offending vehicle. 4 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. On careful perusal of the record and the impugned award, it is evident that the Tribunal, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, reached the finding that Dhelu Kumar/respondent No.1 was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and was not in possession of a valid driving license. The contention of the appellant that Dinesh Kumar Tiwari was the driver has not been substantiated by any credible or corroborative material on record. The plea that the driver absconded also appears to be an afterthought and has not been supported by cogent evidence. Accordingly, no error can be found in the Tribunal’s conclusion regarding breach of policy conditions and fastening of liability on the owner of the offending vehicle. 8. With respect to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has awarded ₹2,50,000/- for future treatment, based on a certificate issued by an orthopedic surgeon which assessed the cost for knee surgery, necessitated due to multiple fractures suffered by the claimant. Considering the nature of injury and necessity of future treatment, the Tribunal’s award cannot be said to be exorbitant or excessive. The award is based on just, reasonable, and evidence- backed computation. 9. This Court, therefore, finds no infirmity in the impugned award either with regard to the issue of liability or the quantum of compensation. 5 10.In view of the above, the appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha