1 2026:CGHC:24781 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 647 of 2026 Vijay Kumar Sonwani S/o Nansai Sonwani Aged About 51 Years R/o Village- Petla, Police Station And Tahsil- Sitapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Sushila Das W/o Late Bira Das Aged About 44 Years R/o Village- Devgarh (Bakhripara) Police Station And Tahsil- Sitapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 2 - Mamta Das D/o Late Bira Das Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Sushila Das W/o Late Bira Das, R/o Village- Devgarh (Bakhripara) Police Station And Tahsil- Sitapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 3 - Chandan Paikra S/o Mange Ram Paikra Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Silma (Pathraipara), Police Station And Tahsil- Sitapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) (Owner) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Sahu, Advocate alongwith Mr. Shubham Tiwari, Advocate SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.06.22 11:22:26 +0530 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 18/06/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 04.02.2026 passed by learned Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District – Surguja in MACT Execution Case No. 13/2020, whereby the prayer made by the petitioner for apportionment of liability to pay the compensation to the claimants has been rejected and directed to deposit the remaining amount of compensation in two equal installments in the interval of 15 days or else attachment warrant of his salary could be issued. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was the non-applicant No.1 in the MACT Claim Case No. 59/2019. The respondents No.1 and 2 had filed a claim case for compensation on account of death of husband of claimant No.1 and father of claimant No.2 namely Bira Das who died in a motor accident that occurred on 21.01.2018. In that claim case an amount of Rs. 5,84,800/- has been awarded to the claimants as compensation and liability was fastened upon the petitioner who was the non-applicant No.1 and the non- applicant No.2 - owner of the subject vehicle jointly and severally. Thereafter, the claimants/ respondents No.1 and 2 initiated an execution proceedings on 17.01.2020 in which the petitioner had 3 already deposited Rs. 3,25,000/- and the remaining amount of compensation is required to be deposited by the non-applicant No.2 - owner of the vehicle as the liability has been fastened jointly and severally, therefore, the owner and the driver of the subject vehicle are liable to pay the amount of compensation in equal proportion to the claimants. The petitioner has already complied with by the order passed by the learned Claims Tribunal whereas non-applicant No.2 - owner of the vehicle has not been complied with his part of the liability. He would further submit that the petitioner is a government teacher and if the amount of compensation would be recovered by attachment of his salary, it would prejudice the livelihood of his family, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the petition may be allowed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. From perusal of the award dated 28.11.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District – Surguja in MACT Claim Case No. 59/2019 (Annexure P-2), it transpires that an amount of Rs. 5,84,800/- was awarded in favour of the claimants and the liability to pay the amount of compensation was fastened upon the non- applicants that is the non-applicant Nos.1 and 2. There is no apportionment of payment of compensation and the liability of entire amount of compensation was fixed upon the non-applicants both. The submission of the petitioner is that the non-applicant No.1 and 2 both are having equal liability to pay the compensation, does not find place in the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. Since the order impugned has been passed against both the non-applicants 4 under the principle of jointly and severally liability, the petitioner/non- applicant No.1 as well as non-applicant No.2 both are having jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. When an specific query has been put to learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether any appeal has been filed against the award dated 28.11.2019, he would submit that he is not in knowledge of filing of any appeal by the non-applicants. 6. Since there is no direction in the award dated 28.11.2019 with respect to the apportionment to pay the compensation to the claimants, I do not find any perversity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 04.02.2026 passed by learned Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District – Surguja rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner for apportionment of the liability to pay the compensation to the claimants. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit