1 2026:CGHC:14689 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1414 of 2022 1. Smt. Seeta Sidar W/o Late Vidyadhar Sidar aged about 28 years R/o Village Jiladi Post Baradoli District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. At Present Address Bhagwanpur CMO Office Ke Pass Raigarh Tahsil and District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2. Minor Umesh Sidar S/o Late Vidyadhar Sidar aged about 8 years Minor Through Their Legal Guardian Appellant No. 01 Smt. Seeta Sidar. R/o Village Jiladi Post Baradoli District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. At Present Address Bhagwanpur Cmo Office Ke Pass Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 3. Minor Abhishek Sidar S/o Late Vidyadhar Sidar aged about 6 years Minor Through Their Legal Guardian Appellant No. 01 Smt. Seeta Sidar. R/o Village Jiladi Post Baradoli District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. At Present Address Bhagwanpur CMO Office Ke Pass Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants/claimants versus 1. Vinod Kumar Sidar S/o Shri Bhogi Lal Sidar R/o Village Singpuri Baradoli Pusour P.S. And Tehsil Pusour, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Vehicle Owner) 2. Branch Manager Icici Lambard General Insurance Company Limited S/o Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For appellants : Shri Manoj Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Shri Shekhar Rao Amin, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board dated 27/03/2026 This appeal arises out of the award dated 06.07.2022 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the "Tribunal") Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) in 2 Claim Case No. 76/2021 awarding a compensation of Rs. 01,00,000/- in favour of the appellants/claimants. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 30.07.2022 deceased Vidyadhar was returning from village Sursi on the motorcycle taken from respondent No.1 herein and when he reached near the tank of Balpur Jiladi, the offending vehicle – motorcycle fell into a ditch. At that time, heavy pour down with wind being blown was there. On account of this, the victim suffered injuries, was shifted to the hospital but died during treatment. 3. With aforesaid facts, a claim petition was filed by the appellants/claimants praying for compensation of Rs. 29,80,000/- on various heads. Pleadings of the claimants have, however, been denied by the respondents. 4. After evaluating the evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 01,00,000/- to the appellant/claimants as compensation as a whole and it is this award which is under challenge in this appeal. 5. Counsel for the appellants submits that the assessment of the income of the deceased is on the lower side and needs enhancement. He submits that the Tribunal has not considered his income and awarded a lump sum of Rs. 01,00,000/- which is bad in law, and being so the compensation awarded is required to be enhanced. 6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent No.3 has supported the award impugned and submitted that there was violation of the insurance policy and that the offending vehicle itself did not belong to the deceased but was borrowed from respondent No. 1 and therefore the claim under Section 163-A of the MV Act was not maintainable. He submits that since the additional premium of Rs. 50/- was paid, the compensation of Rs. 01,00,000/- is just and in conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance company Ltd. reported in (2020) 2 SCC 550, and being that the award impugned does not call for any interference in this appeal. 3 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 8. Admittedly, the deceased was riding the motorcycle of respondent No.1 and further that no other vehicle was involved in the accident. Being this, the finding recorded by the Tribunal while passing the award impugned being strictly in conformity with the legal provisions and the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ramkhiladi (supra). No other ground has been raised by the counsel for the appellants which could prompt this Court to interfere with the award in question. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find any illegality in the award impugned and therefore, the appeal being without merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Jyotishi AVANISH JYOTISHI Digitally signed by AVANISH JYOTISHI Date: 2026.04.06 14:07:37 +0530