1 2025:CGHC:50740 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1179 of 2017 1 - Smt. Kastura Bai W/o Late Punitram Halba, Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No.19, Budhapara, Balod, Tahsil And District Balod, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Gokulram S/o Late Punitram Halba, Aged About 29 Years Mentally Unfit Person, Represented Through Next Friend Mother Kastura Bai R/o Ward No.19, Budhapara, Balod, Tahsil And District Balod, Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Rekha D/o Late Punitram Halba, Aged About 18 Years R/o Ward No.19, Budhapara, Balod, Tahsil And District Balod, Chhattisgarh .................Claimants, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants/Claimants versus 1 - Sukhchand Patel S/o Chandan Singh Patel, Aged About 39 Years R/o Ganganagar Ward, Jagdalpur, P.S. Meghghat, Post And Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh ..............Driver, Chhattisgarh 2 - Nishar Qureshi S/o Mahboob Qureshi, Aged About 55 Years R/o Bhairamgarh, Tahsil And District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh ................Owner, District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Office, G.E.Road, Near Railway Fatak, Beside R.K.Mall, Mahoba Bazar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 MAC No. 1407 of 2017 1 - Smt. Kamini Dehari W/o Late Lekhram Dehari, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Tarri, Tahsil Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Ashish S/o Late Lekhram Dehari, No. 2 Is Minor Represented Through Legal Guardian And Mothe Smt. Kamini Dehari, R/o Village Tarri, Tahsil Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Yogita D/o Late Lekhram Dehari, No. 3 Is Minor Represented Through Legal Guardian And Mothe Smt. Kamini Dehari, R/o Village Tarri, Tahsil Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Sonbati, W/o Late Brijlal, Aged About 65 Years Caste Halba, R/o Village Tarri, Tahsil Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh. , District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ---Appellants Versus 1 - Sukhchand Patel S/o Chandan Singh Patel, Aged About 39 Years R/o Ganganagar Ward, Jagdalpur, P. S. Meghghat, Post And Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. Driver , Chhattisgarh 2 - Nishar Qureshi, S/o Mahboob Qureshi, Aged About 55 Years R/o Bhairamgarh, Tahsil And District Bijapur Chhattisgarh. Owner , District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Office, G. E. Road, Near Railway Fatak Beside R. K. Mall, Mahoba Bazar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS System) For Appellants : Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Animesh Pathak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 10.10.2025 1. The appellants/claimants by filing these appeals under Section 173 of 3 the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') are seeking enhancement the amount of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, District- Balod (C.G.) in Claim Case Nos .05/2016 and 07/2016 respectively vide award dated 21.11.2016, in which amount of compensation of Rs. 27,58,691/- and Rs. 11,97,000/- respectively have been granted in favour of the claimants by fastening liability upon respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e., owner and driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration no. AP-31-TU-2239 by exonerating the liability of the insurance company. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 12.12.2015, Gopiram and Lekhram were returning from village- Mujalgondi to Balod on Scooty, at that time before 2 km from Balodgahan, the respondent No.1 by driving his vehicle Truck bearing registration no. AP-31-TU- 2239 in high speed and negligently dashed the Scooty, as a result of which, Gopiram died on the spot and also Lekhram died while being taken to hospital. In respect of the aforesaid accident, a Criminal Case No. 841/15 under Section 279, 304-A of IPC has been registered at Police Station- Gurur and challan has been led before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balod. The respondents being driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Thus, the claimants being parents, wife, son/daughter and brother/sister of the deceased, by filing application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claimed a total sum of Rs.64,21,644/- and Rs. 23,50,000/- respectively under various heads as compensation against the death of deceased Gopiram and Lekhram. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the 4 impugned award dated 21.11.2016 is on lower side and the learned Tribunal has erred in exonerating the insurance company from its liability. The insurance company has not adduced any evidence to prove that there was no permit of the vehicle on the fateful accident. He further submits that the ground which has been raised by the claimants are to the fact that though the liability has been fastened upon the owner and driver of the offending vehicle by exonerating the insurance company, however the insurance company may be directed to pay the amount of compensation in the first instance and to recover the same. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/Insurance company supported the impugned award and submits that the learned Claims Tribunal after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence rightly fastened the liability upon respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e., owner and driver of the offending vehicle by exonerating the insurance company. Being so, there is no need to interfere with the award impugned. 5. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and upon careful consideration of the pleadings, evidence, and submissions of the parties that the insurance company has been rightly exonerated from the liability on the ground that offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. AP-31-TU-2239 was not having requisite permit at the time of accident, therefore, I do not consider the present case to be a 5 fit case to direct the insurance company to pay the amount of compensation in the first instance and to recover the same. The claimants are entitled to get the amount of compensation from the owner and driver i.e., respondent Nos. 1 and 2 of the said offending vehicle upon whom liability has been fastened. Further, the amount of compensation has been adequately awarded by the Tribunal which is Rs. 27,58,691/- and Rs. 11,97,000/- respectively, as such the same need not be enhanced. 7. Accordingly, the appeals are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE AMIT PATEL