1 2025:CGHC:37666 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 156 of 2023 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited 10003, E-8 Epip, Riicoi, Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan) Through Assistant Manager Having Office At Plot No. 1, 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, Besides Sky Auto, Maruti, Dealer, Mahoba Bazar, G.E.Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh … Appellant versus 1 - Rajendra Kumar Yadav S/o Banshilal Yadav Aged About 23 Years R/o Kudurmal, Post Gopalpur, P.S. Darri, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh....Claimant. 2 - Dadulal Kanwar S/o Chamru Singh Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Jatangpur, Ward No. 8, Post Chhuri, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh....Driver. 3 - Neeraj Agrawal S/o Jagdish Agrawal, R/o Qtr. No. 614, Mainroad Bhairotaal, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh....Owner. ... Respondents HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.08.04 11:12:59 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 31.07 .2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant (Insurance Company) challenging the impugned award dated 18/11/2022 passed by Learned 1st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba in Claim Case No. 83/2018 whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,52,638/- has been awarded in favour of respondent No. 1 herein (claimant) and the liability of payment of the said compensation has been fastened upon the appellant (Insurance Company). 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that on 22/08/2017 at about 07:15 PM, respondent No. 1/claimant was going from his house to Chorbhatti in his motorcycle when a Tractor bearing Registration No. CG 12 F 1374, which was being driven by respondent No. 2 herein in rash and negligent manner, came from front and dashed his motorcycle due to which respondent No. 1 suffered grievous injuries and became unconscious. He was taken to a Hospital in Korba wherein he remained hospitalized from 22/08/2017 to 3 02/09/2017 for treatment and he suffered fracture in right leg and right hand. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding in paragraph 27 of the impugned judgment that from the date of the incident i.e. 22/08/2017 till the date of his statement i.e. 09/01/2020, respondent No. 1 was not able to drive a vehicle and make earning and further looking to his condition, the Tribunal has held that he may not be able to work for four more years and after assessing his income as Rs. 8,500/- per month, has granted Rs. 4,08,000/- as loss of earning, however, no Doctor has been examined by respondent No. 1 before the Court to support the said fact, therefore, the Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in granting the aforesaid amount as compensation and the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, considered his submission and perused the record. 5. A careful perusal of the record would show that respondent No. 1 used to work as a Driver and on account of the accident, he had suffered fracture in his leg and had undergone surgeries two times and a rod had also been implanted in his leg, therefore, learned Claims Tribunal, after consideration of oral and documentary evidence on 4 record, has rightly held in paragraph 27 of the impugned judgment that from the date of accident i.e. 22/08/2017 till the date of statement i.e. 09/01/2020, respondent No. 1 was unable to work and earn a livelihood and looking to his condition, he surely will not be able to work for many months and in this condition, after assessing the income of respondent No. 1 as Rs. 8,500/- per month and taking the loss of earning for four years has granted Rs. 4,08,000/- and further adding Rs. 2,19,638/- as medical expenses, Rs. 10,000/- as physical and mental agony, Rs. 10,000/- as miscellaneous expenses incurred during treatment and Rs. 5,000/- for nutrition, has granted total compensation of Rs. 6,52,638/-, which is absolutely just and proper, in my considered opinion and does not warrant any interference from this Court. I do not find any merit in this appeal. 6. Accordingly, the instant appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet