1 2026:CGHC:5679 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2329 of 2024  Akshay Das S/o Harpal Das Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Kotmer Police Station And Tehsil Kartala District - Korba (C.G.) (Claimant) ... Apellant(s) versus 1. Babban Rai S/o Mohar Rai R/o Durgauli Post - Bansohi Police Station - Masrakh District - Saranpur (Bihar) Present Address - Savitri Nagar Police Station Jutmill District - Raigarh (C.G.) (Dirver Of Trailor No. Cg- 13/d9739 ) 2. Sarabjit Singh S/o Jagjit Singh R/o Savitri Nagar Police Station - Jutmill District - Raigarh (C.G.) (Owner Of Trailor No. Cg- 13d/9739) 3. Divisional Manager The Oriental Insurance Compay Limited Address - Geetanjali Bhawan Old Bus Stand Korba Tehsil And District - Korba (C.G.) (Insurer Of Trailor No. Cg- 13/ D/ 9739 ) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Ms. Priya Kaiwart, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 2.2.2026 1) This is an admitted appeal. 2) With the consent of parties, matter is heard finally. 3) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/ claimant under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 assailing the award passed by learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba in Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.02.03 10:51:29 +0530 2 Claim Case No. 62/2021 dated 15.3.2024 whereby learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 93,600/- with interest @ 6% on account of injuries sustained by him. 4) Facts of the present case are that on 25.9.2019 at about 12:30 pm, motorcycle of deceased was dashed by offending vehicle – Trailer bearing registration No. CG-13-D-9739 being driven in rash and negligent manner. In the accident, claimant sustained injuries over various parts of body. 5) Appellant himself had filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- and pleaded that he was aged 19 years and working as mason earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. Insurance Company filed reply and denied the averments made in claim application. A specific plea was taken that driver of offending vehicle did not possess valid driving license on the date of accident and offending vehicle was being plied in absence of valid permit and fitness. Learned Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and thereafter award impugned was passed. 6) Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that although learned Tribunal has honored the medical bills and granted loss of earning for period of four months but awarded meager amounts under conventional heads overlooking the fact that claimant remained hospitalized for period of four months. She prays to modify the award accordingly. 7) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose. She submits that claimant remained 3 hospitalized for period of seven days and learned Tribunal has honored the medical bills submitted by claimant. She further submits that learned Tribunal has awarded loss of earning for that period and granted appropriate compensation under conventional heads. She contends that learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and same does not warrant any interference. 8) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9) Learned Tribunal awarded compensation as under :- Sr. No Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal 1. Medical Bills Rs. 10,000/- 2. Transportation Rs. 5,000/- 3. Special Diet Rs. 10,000/- 4. Attendant Charges Rs. 10,000/- 5. Pain and Suffering Rs. 25,000/- 6. Loss of Earning for four months (@ Rs. 8,400/- pm) Rs. 33,600 TOTAL Rs. 93,600/- 10) Evidently, claimant did not suffer disability and remained hospitalized for seven days. Learned Tribunal has honored the medical bills and awarded appropriate amounts under conventional heads. Learned Tribunal has also awarded loss of earning for period of four months. The claimant failed to examine treating doctor to prove seriousness of injuries sustained by him. In view of the above, the contention made by 4 Ms. Kaiwart cannot be accepted. 11) Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award impugned. Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a