1 2026:CGHC:22298 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 915 of 2019 1 - Subhash Sahare S/o Late Somaji Aged About 35 Years R/o Arjun Nagar, Ghadi Chowk, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh............. (Claimant), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Rajkumar Jaiswal S/o Shri Asarafi Lal Jaiswal R/o Laxminagar, In Fornt Of Panchu Kirana Store, Behind Golden Marbal, Tikarapara, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh..............(Driver Of Hiwa No. Cg08b/2560), 2 - Rashik Khan S/o Shri Rafique Khan R/o Saket Kothari Ramadhin Road, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh................. (Owner Of Hiwa No. Cg08b/2560), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Through Authorized Officer, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company, M.M. Silver Plaza 205, Near Mineral Office, Ring Road No.1, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh................(Owner Of Hiwa No. Cg08b/2560)...........(Non- Applicants), ... Respondent(s) KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.05.13 19:21:23 +0530 2 For Appellant : Miss Ankita Goswami on behalf of Mr. P.K. Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Animesh Pathak, Advocate. (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 12/05/2026 1. The appellant/claimant has preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act, 1988’) calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the award dated 11.2.2019 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.687/2015 by which liability to pay compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- has been fastened on the respondents. In the present Appeal, the appellant/claimant has prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount. 2. In the present case, the Claims Tribunal for the vehicle damaged by the appellant assessed the value of the vehicle at Rs.3,00,000/- and deducted Rs.1,50,000/-, as the maintenance report of the vehicle has not been submitted and as the vehicle remained parked from 9.3.2015 to 26.8.2016, added Rs.20,000/- and granted total compensation of Rs.1,70,000/-. 3. Miss Ankita Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit that cost of the vehicle as estimated by the Claims 3 Tribunal in para-36 of the impugned award is arbitrary inasmuch as Rs.1,50,000/- has been deducted for want of maintenance report whereas the vehicle was in running condition, which is unsustainable and bad in law. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Animesh Pathak, learned counsel for respondent No.3 would support the impugned award. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, this Court is of the opinion that the Claims Tribunal has wrongly deducted an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. It is the case of the appellant/claimant that respondent No.1, while driving the vehicle, which was owned by Rashik Khan (respondent No.2 herein) and insured by respondent No.3/Insurance Company, rashly and negligently caused the accident because of which his vehicle got damaged. As such, there is ample evidence on record to show that the vehicle was in running condition and, therefore, the said deduction appears to be arbitrary. Accordingly, total value of the vehicle as estimated by the Claims Tribunal is assessed at Rs.3,00,000/- and for the loss of vehicle as it remained parked from 9.3.2015 to 26.8.2016, an amount of Rs.20,000/- is granted. 4 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹1,70,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹3,20,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹1,70,000/-, the appellant/claimant is held to be entitled to an additional amount of ₹1,50,000/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 8. With the aforesaid modifications, the Appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Barve