1 2025:CGHC:25021 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 100 of 2021  Sunil Kumar Yadav S/o Neelkanth Yadav, Aged About 30 Years Occupation Dairy Business, R/o Village Sunsuniya, Tahsil Bagbahra, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus  Salikram Yadav S/o Parasram Yadav, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Kumharimuda, Police Station Tendukona, Tahsil Pithoura District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh)........(Owner And Driver Of Motorcycle Hf Deluxe No. C.G.-06-Cb/7231), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. R.V. Rajwade, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Aditi Diwan, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 17/06/2025 Heard on I.A. No. 1, the application for condonation of delay. 1) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the award was passed on 04.02.2020 during the Covid–19 outburst and the 2 appeal was preferred on 25.01.2021. He prays to condone the delay caused in filing the appeal. 2) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent opposes. 3) Taking into consideration the reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 263 days caused in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned. Heard on Admission. 4) The appellant–claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Claim Case No. H–21/2018, dated 04.02.2020, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 35,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. to the appellant from the date of filing of the application till its realization. 5) Facts of the present case are that on 31.10.2017 at about 04 p.m., the appellant was going to Bagbahra on his motorcycle; near Sunsuniya Electricity Sub-Station, the offending motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G.–06–BG–7231, which was being driven by the respondent rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcycle of the appellant. As a consequence, the appellant sustained grievous injuries over the nose and three teeth were broken, which resulted in the dis-figuration of the face. The respondent filed a reply and denied the contents of the 3 application. The learned Tribunal after appreciating documentary and oral evidence, assessed compensation to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- and deducted 50% towards contributory negligence and thus, awarded Rs. 35,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till its realization. 6) Learned counsel for the appellant–claimant submits that the learned Tribunal has assessed the compensation at a lower side and the issue of contributory negligence was wrongly decided against the appellant. 7) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper compensation. 8) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9) Admittedly, there was a head-on collision between the two motorcycles and the appellant sustained injuries, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly decided the issue of contributory negligence against the appellant. 10) From a perusal of the evidence of Dr. Gajendra Sahu AW-2, it is abundantly clear that there was no permanent disability. He has proved that there was a fracture over the left cheek-bone and surgery was done. The appellant produced medical bills and the learned Tribunal considered those medical bills. 11) Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal and evidence of the treating medical practitioner, in the 4 opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, this appeal being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Ajinkya Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.06.18 14:11:19 +0530