1 2026:CGHC:2434 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 777 of 2019 Dharmpal Kushwaha S/o Shri Madho Kushwaha Aged About 50 Years Caste - Koyeer, R/o Village - Nawapara, Police Chowki - Basdeyee, Tahsil - Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Owner), ... Appellant versus 1 - Anil Kumar S/o Shri Ramjatan Aged About 26 Years Caste - Harijan, R/o Village - Shivprasad, Nagar, Police Chowki, Basdeyee, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), 2 - Ravi Kumar S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Aged About 30 Years Caste - Panika, R/o Village - Bhaiyathan (Harrapara) Police Station And Tahsil Bhaiyathan District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Driver), ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Ankita Goswami, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Meena Shashtri, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 15/01/2026 1. The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award passed by the learned II nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Surajpur, in Claim Case No. 115/2017, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 99,580/- with interest @ 9% per annum on account of injuries sustained by respondent No.1. 2 2. Brief facts are that on 23.12.2016, at about 10:30 a.m., while the claimant was returning home along with his friend Durgesh on a motorcycle, the driver of the offending vehicle Tractor bearing registration No. CG-15-AE-3549 & Trolley No. CG-15-AE-3565, by driving it rashly and negligently, dashed their motorcycle and caused injuries to the claimant. 3. The claimant filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The owner of the offending vehicle filed reply and denied the contents of the claim petition. It is pleaded that the offending vehicle was stationary at the time of the accident. The learned Tribunal framed issues and passed the award. 4. Ms. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the claimant was in a drunken condition and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. She would further submit that the learned Tribunal has granted compensation on the higher side. She would contend that there was negligence on the part of the claimant himself and therefore, the learned Tribunal committed an error of law in fastening liability on the driver and owner of the offending vehicle; thus, she would pray for setting aside the award. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Shastri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 would submit that the claimant proved his case before the learned Tribunal by leading cogent evidence. She would further submit that the owner of the offending vehicle failed to lead evidence to establish the fact that the claimant was in a drunken condition. She would argue that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation; thus, she prayed that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3 7. In the present case, the claimant met with an accident on 23.12.2016. FIR was lodged on 03.01.2017 against the driver of the offending tractor. The claimant was medically examined on 06.02.2017. The offending tractor was seized by the police 05.03.2017. A written complaint was lodged by the father of the claimant on 03.01.2017 vide Ex.A/12. 8. The claimant examined himself and proved the contents of the claim petition. He exhibited documents such as FIR, MLC, seizure memo, and medical documents before the learned Tribunal. In the cross- examination, this witness remained consistent. 9. Premlal (AW/2) was an eye-witness. He supported the case of the claimant. Ex.D/1 shows that there was a settlement between the parties and Rs. 16,000/- was given to the claimant for treatment and this document supports the case of claimant. 10.Dharmpal Kushwaha was examined as NAW/1. He stated that the tractor was stationary. 11.NAW/2, Gaya Prasad, also supported the case of the owner of the offending vehicle. 12.The learned Tribunal concluded that the offending vehicle was insured and it was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently and claimant sustained injuries in the said accident. 13.The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are based on oral and documentary evidence, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim