1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 443 of 2025 1 - Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Ground Floor Vanijya Bhavan, Devendra Nagar Road, District Raipur (C.G.), Presently At, 5th Floor, Skypark, Canal Road, Opp. Banthiya Nursing Home, Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Pandu Kumar Mahipal S/o Gyanik Mahipal Aged About 51 Years R/o Gram Charmudia, Tehsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) (Claimant) 2 - Khilawan Sahu S/o Late Milan Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Gram Rakhi, Tehsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 09/09/2025 Heard on IA No. 01 – application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Also heard on admission. 4. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) challenging the award dated 11.09.2024 passed in Claim Case No. 27/2022 passed by the Additional Motor Accident 2 Claims Tribunal, Camp Court Kurud, District Dhamtari, CG. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs. 59,00,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.37,000/- in favour of the respondent No. 1 / claimant on account of the injuries sustained by him in an accident that took place 01.02.2021. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the case in hand the respondent No. 1 / claimant was driving a government vehicle TATA Sumo bearing registration No. CG 03 3764 and according to the pleadings, the offending vehicle Maruti Van bearing registration No. CG 04 MC 9915 was driven by the respondent No. 2 and by overtaking dashed wheel of the TATA Sumo, as a result of which it got uncontrolled and dashed to a tree, resulting into injuries on the person of the respondent No. 1 / claimant. He submits that the FIR was registered against the claimant himself there was no negligence of the vehicles which was insured with the appellant/insurance company i.e. Maruti Van, therefore, this appeal may be admitted. 6. From the perusal on records, it appears that only Rs. 37,000/- has been awarded in favour of the respondent No. 1 / claimant, it does not appear as to whether in order to prove its defence, any witness was examined by the appellant / insurance company. Taking into the meagre amount of compensation, this Court is not inclined to admits this appeal. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan