1 2026:CGHC:19726 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 504 of 2026 Smt. Namrata W/o Devavrat Shukla Aged About 33 Years R/o Nehru Nagar West, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh (Claimant) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Manjri Ulhas Deshmukh W/o Ulhas Arvind Deshmukh Aged About 47 Years R/o House No. 107, Vandematram Apartment, Near Panchmukhi Hanuman Mandir, Model Town, Nehru Nagar (East), Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh (Driver). 2 - Ulhas Arvind Deshmukh S/o Late Arvind Deshmukh Age Not Mentioned, R/o Plot No. 35, Behind The Government Control Shop, Gandhi Nagar, Kosanala, Nehru Nagar (East), Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh (Owner). 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Address T.P. Hub, In Front Of Ujala Bhawan, Station Road Durg, P.S. Mohan Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh (Insurance Company) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate For Respondents : None ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.05.05 19:06:59 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 28/04/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13/12/2025 passed by National Lok Adalat, Bench No.11, Durg in MACT Case No.56/2025, whereby an amount of Rs.65,000/- was awarded as compensation to the petitioner by the National Lok Adalat, Durg. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the petitioner had filed a claim case for compensation on account of injuries sustained by her on a motor accident, that has occurred on 09.03.2024, when she was coming from Rungta College. She met with an accident with the offending vehicle Car bearing Registration No. CG-09-JP-6677 near Hans Chowk, KPS School, Durg. She received grievous injuries and suffered by the prolonged treatment. The accident occurred on 09.03.2024 and she filed the claim case on 17.01.2025. The petitioner had filed her application for compensation along with an application for condonation of delay. Though, the application for condonation of delay was allowed on 11.12.2025, but the same was not informed to the petitioner by her counsel and under the apprehension that her application for condonation of delay may not be allowed by the 3 learned Claims Tribunal, she entered into compromise by which she get less amount of compensation. 4. He would further submit that had the condonation of delay of her claim application was being informed to her, she would not have entered into compromise on such a meagre amount and would claim some more amount for the injuries which she suffered by the said accident. Therefore, the impugned order passed by learned National Lok Adalat, dated 13.12.2025, requires reconsideration and the same may be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 6. From perusal of the impugned award dated 13.12.2025, it transpires that the petitioner along with her counsel was appeared before the learned National Lok Adalat on the date when the settlement was arrived at between the parties. The same counsel were present who was also there in the proceeding at that time when the application for condonation of delay was allowed which was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the claims Tribunal. The said application was allowed on 11.12.2025. Merely by saying that the condonation of delay has not been informed to the petitioner so that she may not have entered into compromise and would claimed more amount as has been settled between the parties, could not be a ground to set aside the order passed by National Lok Adalat. The petitioner is an educated lady, she, in presence of her counsel, 4 entered into compromise and settled the compensation amount between the parties and ultimately accepted the same also. In view of the order passed by the learned National Lok Adalat, she cannot went back into claim case that she was not being informed about the disposal of her condonation of delay application, otherwise, she would not have entered into compromise, is a ground created by the petitioner to set aside the order passed by learned National Lok Adalat, which is not permissible in law. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Arpan