1 2026:CGHC:19426 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1403 of 2024 Sunil Baghel S/o Lt. Ishwar Prasad Baghel, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Batra (Khurasiyapara), Out Post Karanji, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur C.G. ... Appellant versus 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Through Branch Manager, Main Road, Surajpur, District Surajpur C.G. 2 - Bhavesh Kumar Chaudhri S/o Shridhar Prasad Chaudhri Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Old Mines Bhatgaon, Post And Police Station Bhatgaon, District Surajpur C.G. 3 - Sukhlal Rajwade, S/o Gopilal Rajwade, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Shyamnagar (Tamorpara), Police Station Bhatgaon, District Surajpur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 For Respondent No. 2 & 3 : : Ms. M. Asha, Advocate Mr. Armaan Memon on behalf of Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 27/04/2026 1. The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) being aggrieved by the award dated 22.01.2024 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short “learned Tribunal”) Surajpur, District- Surajpur C.G. in Motor Accident Claim No. 43/2022. 2. By the impugned award against the claim of Rs. 18,00,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,58,782/- as total compensation in favour of the claimant on account of the injuries sustained by him in an accident that took place on 23.06.2021 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. CG-29-AC-2551 by respondent no. 3/driver owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 1. 3. As per pleadings of the application filed under Section 166 of MV Act, the appellant sustained serious injuries on account of the accident resulting in fractures. Thus, the above stated compensation was claimed. 4. The claim application was resisted by the respondents including the insurance company taking a plea that there is a violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. 5. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues and decided the same in favour of the claimants. 3 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that just compensation has not been awarded and income of the appellant has wrongly been assessed by the learned Tribunal. 7. Counsel for respondent no. 1 supports the impugned award and submits that there is no need of interference in the award. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. It is an admitted position that no permanent disablement has been caused to the appellant. However, he has suffered fracture and remained in hospital for considerable period of time. Tribunal awarded Rs. 28,000/- for loss of income for 4 months, Rs. 5,000/- for transportation, Rs. 5,000/- for nutritional diet, Rs. 5,000/- for attendant and Rs. 25,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 90,782/- for medical expenses. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, this Court is of the opinion that addition to the compensation awarded by the Claims tribunal, further sum of Rs. 25,000/- would make the compensation just. 11. Thus, respondent no. 1 is directed to make the additional payment of Rs. 25,000/- within a period of 60 days from today. 12. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed in part. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Madhurima