1 2026:CGHC:22244 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 241 of 2020 New India Insurance (Correct Name As Assurance) Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office M.M. Tower Akashwani Marg, Gandhi Nagar, Ward Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh................Non-Applicant No. 3 ... Appellant versus 1 - Ahya Mistry, W/o. Ridya Mistry, Aged About 53 Years, R/o. Village Chandrapuri, Police Station Umarkot, District Nawrangpur (Orissa). 2 - Basudev Mistry, S/o. Ridya Mistry, Aged About 22 Years, R/o. Village Chandrapuri, Police Station Umarkot, District Nawrangpur (Orissa). 3 - Basudev Mistry, S/o. Ridya Mistry, Aged About 17 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Ahya Mistry, R/o. Village Chandrapuri, Police Station Umarkot, District Nawrangpur (Orissa). 4 - Amela Mistry (Deleted as per Court’s order dated 12.05.2026). …….Claimants 5 - Kanesti Yadav, S/o. Banmali Yadav, Aged About 37 Years, R/o. Singh Transport, Bhatgaon, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.............(Driver Of Vehicle) ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.05.12 17:37:51 +0530 2 6 - M/s. Gappu Mahendra Travels, Infront Of New Bus Stand, Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ………... (Owner of the Vehicle) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal with Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocates For Respondents : None appeared. (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 12.05.2026 1. The appellant/insurance company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 18.10.2019 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short “the Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.22/2019 by which the claim application of the claimants is allowed and liability has been fastened upon the insurance company to pay the amount of compensation. 2. Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant/ insurance company, would submit that the age of the deceased was 58 years which has been admitted by Wasudev Mistry (AW-1), however, the learned Claims Tribunal has taken the age of deceased 50 years, 3 which is unsustainable and bad in law and, therefore, compensation deserves to be reduced suitably. 3. None for the respondents, despite service of notice. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, considered his submission made herein-above and gone through the records meticulously. 5. The learned Claims Tribunal has relied upon the document i.e. post- mortem report (Ex.P-8) in which age of the deceased was mentioned as 50 years, therefore, the Claims Tribunal is absolutely justified in taking the age of the deceased to be 50 years, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the claimants had claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-, whereas the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 11,41,200/-, which is contrary to law. 7. It is, however, well settled that the Tribunal is not bound by the amount claimed and is empowered to award just and reasonable compensation on the basis of the evidence available on record, even if such compensation exceeds the amount claimed by the claimants. As such, after assessment of the evidence available on record, the Claims Tribunal has found that the claimants are entitled to compensation higher than the amount claimed, which is just and 4 proper. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this appeal, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok