(MAC No.515/2023) 2025:CGHC:60304 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 515 of 2023 {Arising out of award dated 1-3-2023 passed by the 10th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Motor Accident Claim Case No.1007/2021} Smt. Reeta Sandhya Nayak, aged about 57 years, W/o Shri A.K. Nayak, R/o T/92, Chandela Nagar, Ring Road No.3, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Claimant) ... Appellant versus 1. Mukesh Yadav, aged about 22 years, S/o Ramlal Yadav, R/o Khaija, Police Station Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. (Driver of vehicle Car No.CG-11/AC-2298) 2. Ashwani Kumar Yadav, S/o Shri Ramkumar Yadav, R/o Village & Post Khaija, Police Station Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. (Owner of vehicle Car No.CG-11/AC-2298) 3. S.B.I. General Insurance Company Limited, Fourth Floor, Poojan Chambers, Pachpedi Naka, Dhamtari Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of vehicle Car No. CG-11/AC-2298) (Non-applicants) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Harishankar Patel and Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocates. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate. Single Bench:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 11/12/2025 SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.12.12 17:36:53 +0530 (MAC No.515/2023) 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant herein/claimant challenging the impugned award dated 1-3-2023 passed by the 10th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Motor Accident Claim Case No.1007/2021, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has dismissed the application for compensation filed by the appellant herein/ claimant. 2. The appellant’s motorcycle suffered accident and she claimed personal damage from her insurer i.e. ₹ 17,000/- which was granted and thereafter, she filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal against owner of the vehicle, driver of the vehicle, who has dashed her motorcycle, and Insurance Company which has been dismissed by the Claims Tribunal holding that the order granting ₹ 17,000/- has become final and therefore, the claimant is not entitled for any compensation which has been challenged in this appeal. 3. Mr. Divyanand Patel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein/claimant, would submit that the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal is maintainable and the claimant is entitled for the balance amount of ₹ 1,15,150/-. He would rely upon the decision of the Kerala High Court in the matter of Mariamma James and others v. Alphones Antony and others1 to buttress his submission. 4. Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 herein/Insurance Company, would oppose the appeal and support the impugned award. 1 2016 SCC OnLine Ker 29226 (MAC No.515/2023) 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Admittedly, for own damage, the claimant has received ₹ 17,000/- from United India Insurance Company Limited, but surprisingly, the order granting ₹ 17,000/- by United India Insurance Company Limited has not been filed before the Claims Tribunal and it is not the case of the appellant herein/claimant that liability of United India Insurance Company Limited – insurer of the appellant’s car, was confined to ₹ 17,000/-. The appellant herein/claimant has filed the present claim taking the rest of the compensation against own damages. She could have fairly come to the court by filing the order of United India Insurance Company Limited granting ₹ 17,000/- which has not been suppressed by the claimant and that order has become final as it has not been challenged and therefore the appellant is not entitled to file second claim petition. The appeal deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma