1 CGHC010419052019 2026:CGHC:30431 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2210 of 2019 1 - Smt. Sanvaro W/o Late Baliram Aged About 25 Years Occupation House Wife, R/o Village - Sukhari, Post - Sahpur, Police Station Chando Tahsil - Samari (Kushami), District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Abhijit S/o Late Baliram Aged About 3 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Appellant No. 1 Smt. Sanvaro W/o Late Baliram, R/o Village - Sukhari, Post - Sahpur, Police Station Chando Tahsil - Samari (Kushami), District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Pandu @ Padu S/o Late Sukhdev Aged About 58 Years Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village - Sukhari, Post - Sahpur, Police Station Chando Tahsil - Samari (Kushami), District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Gouri W/o Pandu @ Padu Aged About 56 Years Occupation - House Wife, R/o Village - Sukhari, Post - Sahpur, Police Station Chando Tahsil - Samari (Kushami), District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. (Claiments), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Branch Manager Effco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Manendragarh Road In Front Of Rawat Residency Ambikapur, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) 2 - Pannalal S/o Kalim Ram Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Kothali, Post Shankargarh Police Station And Tahsil Shankargarh, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. (Driver And Owner) ... Respondent(s) KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE 2 For Appellants : Miss Akanksha Vishwakarma appears on behalf of Mr. AN Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. PR Patankar, Advocate. (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 17/07/2026 1. The appellants/claimants have 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 17.9.2019 passed by the 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surguja (Ambikapur) (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.118/2018 by which liability to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- has been fastened on the respondent/Insurance Company. In the present Appeal, the appellants/claimants have prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount. 2. Miss Akanksha Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the appellants /claimants would submit that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded just and proper compensation. As such, the impugned award may be modified accordingly. 3. On the other hand, Mr. PR Patankar, learned counsel for respondent No.1/Insurance Company would support the impugned award and submit that just and proper compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal. He further submits that the Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.1 lakh to the claimants, as the Insurance Policy (Ex.- 3 D/1) covers for owner-driver to the tune of Rs.1 lakh and the same has been awarded by the Tribunal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. A careful perusal of the record would show that an application under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 has been filed by the LRs of the deceased (driver of the vehicle). The owner was sitting as pillion rider and the deceased was driving the vehicle. It appears that premium of Rs.50/- for personal accident for the owner-driver has been paid by the owner vide Ex.-D/1. 6. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that since the deceased was driving the vehicle and the owner was sitting as pillion rider at the time of accident, the deceased stepped into the shoes of the owner and in insurance policy (Ex.-D/1) personal accident was covered for owner-driver to the tune of Rs.1 lakh, is a correct finding of fact based on evidence on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. 7. In the result, the Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Barve