1 CGHC010205452022 2026:CGHC:38723 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 858 of 2022 Punaram Sahu S/o Late Shri Ramlal Sahu Aged About 54 Years Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Lawanban, Block and Police Station Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Seva Singh S/o Bara Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Near Rajkumar House No. 2030/1, Uchhala Talab Ramkund, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Driver of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. CG.04-MM-9313). 2 - Guruvinder Singh S/o Kulvinder Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o Kamboj Transport Shop No. 2, Hirapur, Tatibandh Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. CG.04-MM-9313). 3 - The Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Limited, Micro Office Paras Complex Up Stand Bank of India, Gurudwara Station Road Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh (Insurer of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. CG.04- MM-9313) ... Respondents For the Appellant : Mr. S. P. Sahu, Advocate For the respondents : …… None ….. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 01.09.2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 31.03.2022 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda-Bazar ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.09.02 16:14:41 +0530 2 Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) in MACT No. 77 of 2021 whereby a total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been awarded for the damages caused to the Temple. 3. Brief facts of the case pleaded by the claimant are that on May 31, 2021, in the mid night the offending truck (No. CG04-MM-9313) driven by respondent no.1 rashly and negligently rammed into the Bagdai Mata Temple located in village in Lavanban village, as a result of which, the entire Temple was damaged and completely destroyed. The claim application has been filed by the appellant u/s 166 of the MV Act seeking compensation of Rs.12 lakhs for the damages caused to said temple. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that a meagre sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been awarded, which cannot be said to be a just compensation, and prayed for enhancement of the compensation. 5. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence placed in the case, the Tribunal has observed that the priest of the Temple and other villagers authorized the village Sarpanch who is the claimant appellant to handle the case. The temple was found to be damaged to the extent of 95%. The bills amounting to Rs.2,38,455/- related to the ongoing construction of the temple have also been produced. From the case details, the fact has also emerged that the temple is approximately 10-15 years old. Therefore, considering all such circumstances, the Tribunal has awarded a lumpsum of Rs.1,00,000/-. 6. Because the temple was an old structure (10–15 years) and subject to standard depreciation in property valuation, the lumpsum of ₹1,00,000 granted by the Tribunal cannot be said to be unfair or unreasonable. 7. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned award warranting interference by this Court in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed at the admission stage, itself. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge Rao