Page No.1 of 3 IN MAC-72-2023 2025:CGHC:40261 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 72 of 2023 [Arising out of award dated 07.09.2022, passed in Claim Case No.175/2019 (Smit Rangare v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited) by the Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara (CG)] The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through The Manager At - B.C., In Front Of Bemetara Bus Stand, Bemetara Main Road Above Balaji Medical Stores, Bemetara Police Station - Bemetara, District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, Represented Through In-Charge, Legal Hub, Hub Office, 1st Floor, Rama Trade Centre, Rajiv Plaza, Opposite Old Bus Stand Bilaspur, Tehsil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant Versus Smit Rangare S/o Mahesh Kumar Rangare, Aged About 26 Years Address - R/o Ward No. 16, Nayapara, Police Station Bemetara District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ......................Claimant/ Owner/ Driver. ... Respondent [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. S.K. Sahu, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 11.08.2025 1. In this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short the “MV Act”), the appellant-Insurance Company is calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned award dated 07.09.2022, passed in Claim Case No.175/2019 (Smit SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 3 IN MAC-72-2023 Rangare v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited) by the Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara (CG) (for short the “MACT”), whereby the claim application filed by the respondent/claimant has been allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.1,67,939/- has been awarded to him alongwith interest @ 6% PA, which is payable by the appellant-Insurance Company herein. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would submit that in the present case, in an application filed under Section 163 of the MV Act by the claimant, who is the owner of the offending vehicle, the learned MACT has awarded compensation of Rs.1,67,939/-, whereas, according to the insurance policy, the appellant-Insurance Company is only liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the claimant. As such, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned award and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. In the case at hand, after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, specially the medical bills produced by the claimant/respondent herein to the tune of Rs.1,06,139/-, the learned MACT after adding Rs.15,000/- & Rs.46,800/- towards mental and physical agony and loss of income respectively, proceeded to award Page No.3 of 3 IN MAC-72-2023 total compensation of Rs.1,67,939/- to the claimant/respondent herein, which in the considered opinion of this Court, is correct calculation of compensation under the peculiar facts and circumstance of this case and same is also based on evidence/material available on record. Accordingly, I do not consider it a fit case warranting interference in the impugned award, passed by the learned MACT. 6. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this appeal. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if