1 2025:CGHC:54005 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1808 of 2018 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Divisional Managar, Division Office, Parmanand Building, Near Dr. Rajendra Park Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh........(Insurer), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Suresh Kumar Chandrakar S/o Keshavram Chandrakar Aged About 34 Years R/o Kurmipara, Balod, Tahsil And District Balod, Chhattisgarh..........(Claimant), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 2 - Jitendra Kumar Kothari S/o Kaliram Kothari Aged About 35 Years R/o Jungera, Tahsil And District- Balod, Chhattisgarh........(Driver), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 3 - Anurag Dubey S/o Laxminarayan Dubey Aged About 28 Years R/o Pandey Para Balod, Tahsil And, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh........ (Owner), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1804 of 2018 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Divisional Manager, Division Office, Parmanand Building Near Dr. Rajendra Park Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh......(Appellant Insurer)., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Suman Sahu S/o Radheshyam Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Balodgahan, Tahsil Gurur, Tahsil And District- Balod, Chhattisgarh, Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Presently Residing At Sanjay Nagar, Balod, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh.........(Res.Claimant), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 2 - Jitendra Kumar Kothari S/o Kaliram Kothari Aged About 35 Years R/o Jungera Tahsil And District- Balod, Chhattisgarh........(Driver), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 3 - Anurag Dubey S/o Laxminarayan Dubey Aged About 28 Years R/o Pandey Para, Balod, Tahsil And District- Balod, Chhattisgarh......... (Owner), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 1812 of 2018 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Divisional Manager, Division Office, Parmanand Building, Near Dr. Rajendra Park Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh........(Insurer), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Dharmendra Chandrakar S/o Kamalnarayan Chandrakar Aged About 28 Years R/o Aurabhatha, Tahsil And District- Balod, Chhattisgarh.........(Claimant), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 2 - Jitendra Kumar Kothari S/o Kaliram Kothari Aged About 35 Years R/o Jungera, Tahsil And District- Balod, Chhattisgarh........(Driver), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 3 - Anurag Dubey S/o Laxminarayan Dubey Aged About 28 Years R/o Pandey Para, Balod, Tahsil And District- Balod, Chhattisgarh........ (Owner), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate 3 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 04/11/2025 1. Since the factual matrix and the core issues involved in both appeals are identical and arise from the same accident dated 31.07.2018 passed in Claim Cases No.02/2017, 03/2015, and 01/2017, therefore, the appeals have been clubbed, heard together, and are being decided by this common order. 2. Facts of MAC No. 1808 of 2018, in brief, for necessary disposal are that on 03.07.2015, at about 2:00 p.m., respondent no. 1, Suresh Kumar Chandrakar, along with two others, was returning from Dondilohara to Balod on a motorcycle (Reg. No. C.G.-24- 1320) when a Toyota Innova (Reg. No. C.G.-07-M-0850), driven rashly and negligently, collided with them, causing grievous injuries to Suresh Kumar Chandrakar, who underwent surgery and was hospitalized for 15 days. An FIR (Crime No. 294/15) was registered, and a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 279, 337, and 338 IPC. The injured, earning about Rs. 200 per day as a vegetable vendor, filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking Rs. 7,75,000/- compensation. The driver and owner denied involvement, while the insurer alleged contributory negligence and absence of a valid licence. After framing issues and recording evidence, the Tribunal, by award dated 31.07.2018, granted Rs. 19,500/- with 10% interest per annum from 02.01.2017, holding all respondents jointly and severally liable. 4 3. Facts of MAC No. 1804 of 2018, in brief, for necessary disposal are that on 03.07.2015 at about 2:00 p.m., respondent No. 1, Suman Sahu, along with two others, was returning from Dondilohara to Balod on a motorcycle (No. CG-24-1320) when it was hit by a rashly and negligently driven Toyota Innova (No. CG- 07-M-0850), resulting in grievous injuries and a fracture to respondent No. 1. An FIR No. 294/15 was registered, and a charge sheet was filed under Sections 279, 337, and 338 IPC. The injured, earning Rs. 300/- per day as a welder, filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking Rs. 10,75,000/- as compensation. The driver and owner denied involvement, while the insurer (appellant) pleaded contributory negligence and absence of a valid licence. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,54,105/- with 10% interest jointly and severally against the driver, owner, and insurer. 4. Facts of MAC No. 1812 of 2018, in brief, for necessary disposal are that on 03.07.2015, respondent No. 1, Dharmendra Chandrakar, along with two others, was returning from Dondilohara to Balod on a motorcycle (No. CG-24-1320) when it was hit by a rashly and negligently driven Toyota Innova (No. CG- 07-M-0850), resulting in a right knee fracture and other injuries. He underwent surgery, remained hospitalized for 23 days, and suffered 45% permanent disability. An FIR No. 294/15 was registered, and a challan was filed under Sections 279, 337, and 338 IPC. The injured filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor 5 Vehicles Act seeking Rs. 20,75,000/- compensation. The driver and owner denied involvement, while the insurer (appellant) alleged contributory negligence and absence of a valid licence. The Tribunal, after evidence, awarded Rs. 3,88,615/- with 10% interest jointly and severally against the driver, owner, and insurer. On the above facts of the case being aggrieved appellant-insurance company has filed these appeals. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company respectfully submits that the impugned awards passed by the learned Tribunal are contrary to the facts, law, and evidence on record. The Tribunal failed to properly appreciate that the offending vehicle was described inconsistently as a red-coloured Tavera in the complaint, whereas the registration certificate pertains to a red-coloured Innova, thereby creating serious doubt regarding the actual involvement of the insured vehicle. Furthermore, the owner of the alleged offending vehicle specifically denied such involvement and clarified that Mr. Jitendra Kumar Kothari was never engaged as a driver. 6. The appellant further submits that the tribunal erred in ignoring the admitted fact that three persons were riding on the motorcycle at the time of the accident and that the rider did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, which clearly establishes contributory negligence on the part of the claimants. The Tribunal also failed to examine the authenticity of the medical bills produced by the claimants, which were suspiciously prepared 6 without mentioning the name of the medical store or the date of issuance. In Claim Case No.01/2017, the Tribunal erroneously allowed conveyance charges for travel from Balod to Durg, although the claimant himself admitted that treatment was taken in Raipur. 7. It is further submitted that the Learned Tribunal has awarded excessive and unwarranted compensation without adhering to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar v. Ajay Kumar , 2011 (1) TAC 785 , regarding differentiation between physical and functional disability and assessment of compensation. The awards thus suffer from gross legal infirmities and warrant interference by this Court. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shila Dutta & Ors. , 2011 ACJ 2729 , the appellant is entitled to challenge both the quantum and the finding on negligence without seeking prior permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant has complied with the mandatory deposit requirement under Section 173 of the Act, and therefore, prays that the impugned awards be set aside or suitably reduced. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Tribunal has awarded the amount of compensation are not in accordance with law and the same are required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the awarded compensation by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Therefore, the 7 compensation amount may be enhanced suitably. Hence, these appeals may be dismissed and awarded amount needs to be enhanced suitably. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/owner respectfully opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the insurance company. It is contended that the impugned judgment and awards passed by the learned Tribunal are based on a careful appreciation of the evidence on record, including the FIR, medical documents, and oral testimonies of the witnesses. The Tribunal has duly considered the circumstances of the accident, the extent of injuries sustained by the claimants, and the applicable provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, while awarding just and reasonable compensation, and has rightly fastened the liability. The counsel further submits that there is no infirmity or legal error in the findings of the Tribunal regarding liability or quantum of compensation, and therefore, the impugned awards are liable to be upheld. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. 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 the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 8 12. In light of the above discussion, this Court finds no illegality, infirmity, or perversity in the findings or the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. The awards are well-reasoned and supported by evidence. The contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant–insurance company are devoid of merit and do not warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction. 13. Accordingly, all three appeals, bearing, MAC Appeal Nos. 1804/2018, 1808/2018, and 1812/2018, being devoid of substance, are dismissed. The awards dated 31.07.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are hereby affirmed in toto. The amount of compensation, if not already deposited, shall be deposited by the appellant–insurance company before the learned Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order, for disbursement to the claimants in accordance with law. Certified Copy as per rules. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shayna