1 CGHC010297242026 2026:CGHC:37238 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1059 of 2026 Rajeshwar Dayal Dhruw S/o Nakul Dhruw Aged About 45 Years R/o Nearby Shiv Mandir Antagarh, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.)(Owner Of The Offending Vehicle No. C.G. 19 B.H.3566) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Pyari Priya Sahu W/o Late Bhojraj Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Narayanpur, Nearby Dudh Deyari, Tehsil Bhanupratappur District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 2 - Shreya Sahu, D/o Late Bhojraj Sahu, Aged About 19 Years R/o Narayanpur, Nearby Dudh Deyari, Tehsil Bhanupratappur District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 3 - Minor Mayank Kumar Sahu, S/o Late Bhojraj Sahu, Aged About 16 Years Through Her Mother Pyari Priya Sahu, W/o Late Bhojraj Sahu. R/o Narayanpur, Nearby Dudh Deyari, Tehsil Bhanupratappur District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 4 - The New India Insurance Company Limited M.M. Tower, Akashwaqni Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) Insurer Of Motor Cycle Bearing No. No. C.G.19 B.H. 3566. 5 - Akash Dhruw, S/o Rajeshwar Dayal Dhruw, Aged About 26 Years R/o Nearby Shiv Mandir Antagarh, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) Driver Of The Offending Vehicle No. C.G. 19 B.H.3566) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.08.22 12:07:40 +0530 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 19/08/2026 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 20.04.2026 passed by learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhanupratappur, District - North Bastar (Kanker) in Execution Case No. 9/2025, whereby the application filed by the judgment debtor/petitioner for fixing the installment of Rs. 5,000/- per month in lieu of the liability to pay compensation in recovery proceeding initiated by the insurance company has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by the award dated 02.09.2024, the liability to pay compensation was fastened upon the petitioner who was the non-applicant No.2/owner of the offending vehicle. Although, the learned Claims Tribunal has passed the order that the insurance company first pay the compensation to the claimants and then he is entitled to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle as there was breach of policy condition. The insurance company had paid the amount of compensation and initiated the recovery proceeding of the compensation amount from the petitioner/ non-applicant No.2 pursuant to the right to recover the compensation from the owner given in para 35 of the impugned award dated 02.09.2024. He would further submit that the petitioner is a government 3 employee having various liabilities of his family as well as other daily needs. The amount which is sought to be recovered by the insurance company is about Rs. 33,05,010/- which is beyond the capacity of the petitioner. During the execution proceeding, the petitioner made an application seeking fixation of a monthly installment of Rs. 5,000/-, to be recovered from his salary but the said application has been rejected by the learned Executing Court holding that the amount recoverable is a huge one and the proposed installment is very low which does not fulfill the requirement of recovery of the entire amount of compensation during his service tenure. He would further submit that the petitioner has deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 05.01.2026 and looking to the financial condition of the petitioner and the recoverable amount, the application of the petitioner may be allowed and the petitioner may be directed to pay the amount in monthly installment of Rs. 5,000/- per month by setting aside the impugned order passed by learned Executing Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the document annexed with the petition. 5. The petitioner could not dispute passing of the award dated 02.09.2024 in which the liability has been fastened upon him as has been observed in para 35 of the award passed in Claim Case No. 07/2023 by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhanupratappur. It has also not been disputed that the petitioner has not challenged the said award before any superior forum, and thus, the said award dated 02.09.2024 attains its finality. The only grievance of the petitioner would be to fix the liability to pay the compensation to the insurance company in installments. Admittedly, the insurance company has filed an 4 application for recovery of the amount of compensation, that is Rs. 33,05,010/- and the petitioner proposed repayment of an amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month from his salary towards his liability. The learned Executing Court in its order dated 20.04.2026 observed that looking to the recoverable amount, the proposed amount is very low which does not fulfill the requirement of the recovery of huge amount of Rs. 33,05,010/- and during his entire tenure, the amount could not be recovered in entirety, therefore, the learned trial Court rejected the application. Since the liability to pay compensation upon the petitioner has attained its finality, he has to pay his liability. Though, the petitioner proposed repayment of the liability at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month from his salary which is totally insufficient to discharge his liability in satisfaction of the impugned award. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 20.04.2026 passed by the learned Executing Court. The Executing Court has rightly observed that the proposed installment of Rs.5,000/- per month is wholly disproportionate to the awarded amount of Rs.33,05,010/- and would not result in satisfaction of the award within a reasonable period. Since the award dated 02.09.2024 has attained finality and the petitioner has failed to make out any legal ground warranting interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit