1 2025:CGHC:58854 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 165 of 2022 United India Insurance Co. Limited Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office 1st Floor, Krishna Complex, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Fuleshwari Dhiwar Wd/o Late Tattu Dhiwar Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Sankari, P.O. Korashi, Police Station Kharora, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Devanand Dhiwar S/o Late Tattu Dhiwar Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Their Mother Smt. Fuleshwari Dhiwar (Resp. No. 1), R/o Village Sankari, P.O. Korashi, Police Station Kharora, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Daulal Dhiwar S/o Late Tattu Dhiwar Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Their Mother Smt. Fuleshwari Dhiwar (Resp. No. 1), R/o Village Sankari, P.O. Korashi, Police Station Kharora, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ku. Soniya Dhiwar D/o Late Tattu Dhiwar Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Their Mother Smt. Fuleshwari Dhiwar (Resp. No. 1), R/o Village Sankari, P.O. Korashi, Police Station Kharora, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 5 - Smt. Bhagaiya Dhiwar (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 09-10-2025, 13-11-2025 And 24-11-2025. 6 - Hiraram Miradha S/o Bheduram Miradha Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Amawas, P.S. Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. (Driver). 7 - Aarif Beig S/o Aliyar Beig R/o Nayapara, Mahasamund P.S. Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. (Owner) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondents : None though served 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/Insurance Company challenging the impugned award dated 21/10/2021 passed by learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Mahasamund in Claim Case No. 202/2016, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 7,40,000/- to the respondent No. 1 to 4/claimants for the death of Tattu Ram Dhiwar and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant/Insurance Company. 3 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the Claims Tribunal has awarded penal interest of 7 % which is contrary to Section 171 of the Act of 1988. He would further submit that accident occurred on 07/01/2016 whereas deceased died on 23/02/2016 and postmortem was also not conducted, therefore, it cannot be established that death of the deceased occurred on account of the accident. 3. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4/claimants, would support the impugned award and submit that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded penal interest of 7% per annum if the compensation is not paid within a period of one month, however, Section 171 of the Act of 1988 directs that where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under this Act, such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as 4 it may specify in this behalf, therefore, penal interest ought not to have been awarded by the Claims Tribunal when simple interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till the date of realization has already been awarded. As such, the order with regard to award of penal interest passed by the Claims Tribunal is hereby set aside. 6. The next submission made by learned counsel for the appellant is that accident occurred on 07/01/2016 whereas deceased died on 23/02/2016 i.e. after a period of 48 days and postmortem has also not been conducted to prove that the death occurred on account of the accident, however, a careful perusal of the record would show that this plea has not been expressly taken by the appellant/Insurance Company in their written statement, therefore, it cannot be considered at the appellate stage and is hereby rejected. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneets