1 MAC No. 821 of 2023 2025:CGHC:58860 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 821 of 2023  Gangaram Vetti S/o Shri Suklo Vetti, Aged About 69 Years, R/o Patelpara, Burugpal, Police Station Kodenar, District Bastar (Chhattisgarh). ... Appellant versus 1.Sonadhar Kashyap S/o Mosu Kashyap, Aged About 37 Years (Vehicle Driver) R/o Alva Loharpara, Police Station Kodenar District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 2.Ranbir Singh S/o Jagnarayan Singh Aged About 36 Years, R/o Madiyapara, Lokmanya Tilak Ward No. 37, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh Pincode 494001 (Vehicle Owner). 3.Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Anupama Chowk, Chitrakot Road, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh 494001. ... Respondents For Appellant :- Mr. Shikhar Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 :- Mr. Kapil Maini, Advocate. 2 MAC No. 821 of 2023 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 04.12.2025 1.This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 20.12.2022 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 203/2021 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of 5,000/- ₹ as compensation along with interest for damage of motorcycle 2.Mr. Shikhar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. He would also submit that the report of the surveyor the cost of the motorcycle at the time of incident was 48,000/-, however, the Claims ₹ Tribunal has awarded only 5,000/- which is not ₹ 3 MAC No. 821 of 2023 appropriate. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 3.Mr. Kapil Maini, learned counsel for the Insurance Company/respondent No.3, would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and support the impugned award. He would submit that no document has been produced by the appellant with regard to service of the motorcycle and, therefore, the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 4.I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein- above and gone through the records meticulously. 5.The Claims Tribunal has clearly recorded finding that though the surveyor of the motorcycle assessed the amount to be 48,000/- ₹ of the motorcycle, but the appellant has not 4 MAC No. 821 of 2023 produced any document demonstrating the amount spent by him in service/maintenance of the motorcycle and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled for the amount assessed by the surveyor, which in my considered opinion is correct finding of fact, based on evidence available on record and the same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and I hereby affirm the aforesaid finding of the Claims Tribunal. 6.Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed finding no merit. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit