1 2026:CGHC:363 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1722 of 2024 Kamal Singh S/o. Sukul Aged About 43 Years Caste - Gond, Occupation - Business (Cycle, Parts And Repairing), R/o. Village - Banshipur, P.S. Bhatgaon, District - Surajpur (C.G.) (Claimant) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Ranjeet Mandal S/o. Late Ram Parvesh Mandal Aged About 34 Years Caste - Kurmi, Occupation - Transporting, Driving, R/o. Shivnandanpur (Gautiyapara), P.S. Bishrampur, District - Surajpur (C.G.) (Driver) 2. New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Ambikapur, Address - Ambika Transport, Ambika Petrol Pump Campus, Near Ambedkar Chowk, Banaras Road, Ambikapur, Dist. Surguja (C.G.) (Insurer) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Ms. Komal Yadav on behalf of Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) No. 2 : Mr. Vikas Patel on behalf of Mr. Qmarul Aziz, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 05/01/2026 1. Appellant/claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'Act of 1988') for setting aside the impugned award dated 08.04.2024 in Claim Case No. 81/2021 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 10:16:45 +0530 2 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, district Surajpur (C.G.), whereby Tribunal allowed application filed under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 in part, and awarded total sum of Rs. 81,110/- as compensation on account of injuries caused to him. 2. The claimant/appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, stating that on 06.12.2019, while sitting outside near his in-laws’ house/shop in Shivnandanpur at around 9:00 AM, he was struck by a Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. CG-29-A-5343, driven by Respondent No. 1, Ranjeet Mandal, who was allegedly driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. As a result, the appellant sustained grievous injuries, including fractures to his hip, waist, and back. He was initially treated at Community Health Centre, Bishrampur, and later referred to Medical College, Ambikapur due to the severity of his injuries. The appellant remained bedridden for a period of six months and became disabled, unable to perform daily chores. The accident was reported to Bishrampur Police Station, and Crime No. 08/2020 was registered against the driver of the vehicle under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the IPC. Subsequently, a charge-sheet was filed and Criminal Case No. 187/2020 “State of Chhattisgarh vs. Ranjit Mandal” was pending. The Respondent No. 1 was the driver and Ram Parwas was the registered owner of the offending vehicle. The vehicle was insured, with validity from 19.07.2019 to 18.07.2020. During pendency of the proceedings, Ram Parvesh Singh, the owner of the vehicle, was deleted from the array of cause title due to his demise. The appellant claimed a total compensation of Rs. 60,41,000/- from the 3 respondents jointly and severally, covering medical expenses, loss of income, transportation costs, and expenses for care, service, and nutritious food. 3. Claimant has filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs. 60,41,000/- pleading therein that the claimant was aged about 40 years and used to run his own business of cycle sale, repairing and motor parts. In the said accident, the claimant got severe injuries on various parts of his body as a result of which he became disabled permanently. 4. That, respondent No. 2/Insurance Company filed its response stating that the appellant has inflated the compensation without providing adequate documentary evidence. It was further pleaded that respondent No. 1 was driving the vehicle without a valid driving license at the time of the accident, which is in violation of the policy terms. The insurance company further claimed that the owner of the vehicle expired and the insurance policy was not transferred therefore it is not liable to pay any compensation. 5. Upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, the learned Claims Tribunal held that on account of rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1 the claimant suffered grievous injuries but as the claimant has not placed any document to show permanent disability, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and awarded Rs. 81,110/- and fastened liability upon Respondents No.2 i.e. the insurance company to pay the award amount and liberty was also granted to recover the same from respondent No. 1 i.e. the driver of the offending vehicle. 4 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence on record while assessing the medical and incidental expenses actually incurred by the appellant. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded under various heads is on the lower side and does not constitute just and reasonable compensation as mandated under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The learned Tribunal has thus committed a serious error in passing the impugned award. Therefore, learned counsel prays that this appeal may be allowed by awarding the compensation as claimed by the claimant in the claim petition. 7. The claim application was resisted by the respondents in the present appeal on various grounds and the counsel for the respondents submit that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper in the given facts and circumstances of the case and does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records with utmost circumspection. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon careful perusal of the record, this Court finds that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has duly considered the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the claimant failed to place any cogent or reliable evidence to establish permanent disability, loss of future earning capacity or higher medical expenditure than what was proved on record. The compensation awarded has been computed strictly on the basis of the evidence available and under the 5 permissible heads, and therefore cannot be said to be either inadequate or arbitrary. This Court does not find any perversity, illegality or material irregularity in the impugned award warranting interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 10. Accordingly, this appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti