NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.A.(C) No. 650 of 2024 Jugutram Yadav S/o Punauram Yadav Aged About 80 Years R/o Village Karpipali, Post Office Karumouha, Tahsil And Police Station Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) (Owner) --- Appellant Versus 1. Dinesh Kumar Yadav S/o Kanhaiyalal Yadav Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Amandula, Tahsil Malkharouda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Claimant) 2. Smt. Gayatri Yadav W/o Dinesh Kumar Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Amandula, Tahsil Malkharouda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Claimant) 3. Bhagatram Dansena S/o Inspector Ram Dansena Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Karpipali, Post Office Karumouha, Tahsil And Police Station Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) (Driver) --- Respondents __________________________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Shri Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 and 2 : Shri Ajay Chandra, Advocate. __________________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 26 /08/2025 1. Heard on 03/2025 an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the delay is enormous. However, the appellant have been able to show the sufficient for causing the delay. He submits that initially a claim case No. 25/2019 was instituted before the II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakti, District – Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). In the Claim application, the appellants who were respondent therein where proceeded ex-party and an award dated 14/08/2019 was passed by which an amount of Rs.05,00,000/- was awarded in favour of the respondents/claimants on account of death of their 12 years daughter. He submits that prior to that as the offending vehicle Tractor ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.09.26 10:08:28 +0530 -2- bearing registration No. CG/13/A-9215 and trolley No. CG/13/A-9216 was not insured, the appellants have entered into a compromise with the respondents / claimants on 05/02/2018 and agreement to that effect was executed whereby appellants have paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the respondent/claimant. 3. As the appellants were an impression that an agreement has already entered into by and between them, no further amount is required to be paid to the respondents /claimants. After the ex-parte award was passed, the appellant’s were not aware about passing of the award and as and when, the execution of the said award was filed by the respondents/claimants and warrant of attachment was issued which was received by the appellant herein, thereafter, they came to know about passing of the impugned award. He submits that the appellant was always ready and willing to settled the dispute, however, despite of received Rs.1,50,000/-, the respondents continued with the claim case. He submits that delay may be condoned and the appeal may be heard on admission. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposing the submission and submits that though could not dispute the agreement, however submits that amount so agreed upon has not been paid to the respondent. 5. Therefore, in light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant have been able to show the sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Therefore, the delay in filing this appeal is hereby condoned. 6. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) by the registered Owner of the offending vehicle Tractor bearing registration No. CG/13/A-9215 and trolley No. CG/13/A-9216 against the award in claim case No. 25/2019 passed by the II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakti, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). 7. By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.05,00,000/- by partly allowing the application under sections 166 of the MV Act seeking compensation Rs.15,72,000/- of in favour of respondent/claimant on account -3- of death of Luvkumar Yadav in an accident that occurred on 04/02/2018 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Tractor. Holding the driver and owner of the offending vehicle liable to pay compensation. 8. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed three issues and decided the same in favour of the claimants and awarded above stated compensation. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amount of compensation is on higher side. 10.Learned counsel for respondent supports the award. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission and also perused the record with utmost circumspection. 12.Having, thus considered the submission, it is not in dispute that the age of deceased is of 12 years and relying upon the judgment and the legal principle laid down in the case of Kishan Gopal and anr. v. Lala and ors., (2014) 1 SCC 244, learned tribunal awarded the above compensation. In the opinion of this Court, the learned tribunal has not committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned award. 13.Hence, appeal has no merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- - /-/-/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish