Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 35422 (CHH)

TOPCHAND BHARDWAJ v. SHIVAM DWIVEDI

MAC/2024/2026 · 2026-09-10

Shri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010352502026 2026:CGHC:39833 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2024 of 2026 1 - Topchand Bhardwaj S/o Narayan Bhardwaj, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village- Goda, Police Station Palari, District - Balouda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1 - Shivam Dwivedi S/o Sushil Kumar Dwivedi R/o Parohan Tola, Ward No.09, Lima Khas (Bada Lima) Post Office- Ramnagar Tahsil - Ramnagar District- Satna (M.P.) (Driver Of Alleged Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No C.G. 22-C-0553). 2 - Durga Career Private Limited Through Its Director Shashi Bhushan Address- Lavan Road Baloda Bazar, Police Station And Tahsil Balouda Bazar, District- Balouda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) (Owner Of Alleged Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No C.G.-22, C-0553). 3 - Insurance Company The New India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Ambedkar Chowk Raipur Road Balouda Bazar, District- Balouda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) (Insurer Of Alleged Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No C.G. 22- C-0553). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondents : Not noticed. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order on Board (11.09.2026) SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.09.11 16:10:55 +0530 2 1. Heard on admission. 2. This is the claimant’s appeal for enhancement against the award dated 06.08.2026 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Motor Accident claim case No. 206/2025 whereby a compensation amount of Rs. 71,641/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is a young man, aged about 22 years, who sustained injuries in a motor accident. The awarded compensation is on the lower side; therefore, the compensation is liable to be enhanced suitably. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 5. On a meticulous scrutiny of the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing Registration No. CG-22-C-0553, driven by Respondent No. 1 (Shivam Dwivedi) and owned by Respondent No. 2 (Durga Career Private Ltd). In paragraphs 13 and 14 of the award, the Tribunal observed that as per Exhibit A-14, the Appellant/Claimant (Topchand Bhardwaj) sustained simple injuries including fracture at base of distal phalanx(outermost bone of finger) of right hand little finger of the applicant in the said accident dated 21.05.2025 and as per Exhibit A-29, he was admitted for about 02 days in Anand Hospital Kharora. On account of the injuries sustained in the said accident, the Claimant was temporarily incapacitated from attending to his day-to-day activities and professional duties for a period of about two months, thereby resulting in loss of income and causing him mental agony and physical suffering. The Claimant also incurred expenses towards attendant charges and special/nutritious diet during the course of his treatment. In view of the documentary evidence substantiating the medical expenses incurred by the Claimant, as reflected in Exhibits A-17 to A-28, including Exhibits A-22 and A-23, and having regard to the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by him, the 3 learned Tribunal deemed it just and reasonable to award compensation of Rs.14,000/- towards loss of Income (for 02 months), Rs.5,000/-towards Special/Nutritious Diet, Rs.5,000/- towards Attendant Charges, Rs.10,000 towards Pain & Suffering and Rs. 37,641/- towards Medical Expenses. Thus, a total compensation of 71,641/- was granted to the Claimant. ₹ 6. On a careful consideration of the material on record, this Court finds that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence and the compensation awarded is just and proper. There is no infirmity in the impugned award warranting interference. 7. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge $ourabh