1 2026:CGHC:5840 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1159 of 2018 National Insurance Company Limited, Kamptee Line Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ( Appellant ) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Rohit Kumar S/o Kapoor Singh Gond, Aged 22 Years, R/o Village Karelagarh Tahsil Khairagarh District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ( Claimant ) 2 - Dilip Janghel S/o Bahal Janghel, Aged 37 Years, R/o Village Jaalbandha Tehsil Khairagarh District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 3 - Vijay Chopda S/o Moolchand Chopda R/o Dauchaura Khariragarh Ward No. 16 Tehsil Khairagarh District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ( Owner ) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Agarwal and Mr. Shashank Agarwal, Advocates For Respondent(s) : None SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 02/02/2026 SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 1. No one appears on behalf of the claimant, driver and owner ( respondents herein), despite service of notice. 2. This is an appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short “the Act”) against the award dated 15.3.2018 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon C(G) in Claim Case No.11/2017. 3. By the impugned award, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition of the claimant filed under Section 166 of the Act and awarded a total sum of Rs.1,53,500/- by way of compensation and the liability was fastened upon the Insurance Company to satisfy the award in favour of the claimant, who sustained injuries in a vehicular accident. 4. It is an injury case. It was stated in the claim petition that on 29.10.2015, respondent/claimant Rohit Kumar was travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-08-S-1712 accompanied by two other pillion riders (including his father). After purchasing some necessities, they were travelling from Pandadah Village market toward Karelagarh. Near Gram Bankalshara, Tehsil Khairagah. Respondent No.1, while driving a Mazda bearing registration No.CG-08-ZB-0229 in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the claimant. It was stated by the claimant that as a result of the said accident, he sustained fracture in his right leg, internal head injuries and other injuries in different parts of the body. The pillion riders also sustained injuries in the said accident. 3 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the claimant is not entitled to receive any compensation as he was solely responsible for the accident. He submits that the claimant was driving the vehicle under the influence of liquor at the material time. Furthermore, there is nothing on record to establish that the claimant was admitted to a hospital; no medical documentation or discharge summaries were produced to substantiate the injuries alleged. Hence, the assertions made in the claim petition regarding his right leg fracture remains unproven. He further submits that the offending vehicle bearing registration No. No.CG-08-ZB-0229 was being driven in a proper and diligent manner. The accident occurred due to the claimant’s own negligence, therefore, he is not entitled to get any compensation. He further submits that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate these aspects and erroneously awarded a sum of Rs.1,53,500/-, which is liable to be set-aside. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the documents annexed with the appeal. 7. A bare perusal of the record reveals that the occurrence of the accident is not in dispute. With regard to the Insurance Company’ allegation of negligence on the part of the claimant/injured, such claims are not substantiated by the Crime Detail Form and Spot Map (Ex.D/1). The FIR was duly lodged vide Ex.D/1 and the final report was submitted as Ex.P/1, supported by the MLC Report (Ex.P/3). The counter foil and treatment prescriptions, seizure memo and medical reports clearly establish the factum of the 4 accident and the resulting injuries. While the claimant alleged a fracture of the right leg and witnesses testified to the same, the Tribunal, upon due appreciation of the evidence, found that the injuries sustained were simple in nature. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to compensation based on these proven facts. Accordingly, after evaluating the evidence, including the medical bills and related record etc., the Tribunal passed an award for a sum of Rs.1,53,500/-. 8. In the light of the foregoing discussion, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned award was passed based on the findings supported by substantiated documents, including the FIR, Final Report, Seizure Memo, MLC etc. It is apparent that all these documents were properly placed before the Tribunal. Furthermore, the oral testimonies of the witnesses were duly considered and correctly appreciated. 9. Accordingly, the impugned award does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference. 10. Consequently, the Appeal is found to be totally devoid of merit. It fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay