1 CGHC010190842024 2026:CGHC:41730 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1278 of 2024 1 - Smt. Sanchita Das W/o Kalyan Kumar Das, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Plot No. 02/b, West, Priyanka Nagar Road, Ashish Nagar Police Station Newai Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Avinash Ekka S/o Edward Ekka, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Through Edward Ekka, Plot No. 19 Awadhpuri Risali, Police Station- Newai Near Railway Line, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle Bearing No. C.G. 07 C.D. 6995). 2 - M.C.K. Kutti Engineering Pvt. Ltd. R/o Plot No. 22/f, Heavy Industrial Area, Hathkhoj Bhilai, Tehsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle Bearing No. C.G. 07 C.D. 6995). 3 - Manager, Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Ltd. Service Office- 403, 4th Floor, B.B.City, Corporate Park, Plot No. 1, Block 9, Rajbandha Ground, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurance Company Of Vehicle Bearing No. C.G. 07 C.D. 6995). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate For Respondents : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (25.09.2026) 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2024, an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 575 days is hereby condoned. 3. Also heard on admission. SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.09.26 10:39:53 +0530 2 4. The appellant (owner of the I-10 Car bearing Registration No. CG- 07/MB-4223) has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the "Act of 1988") against the dismissal of the claim petition by the 08th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (C.G.) (for short “the Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 491/2021 vide order dated 20.07.2022. 5. The case of the appellant, in brief, is that the appellant, Smt. Sanchita Das, had parked her I-10 car bearing registration No. CG- 07/MB-4223 in front of her residence on 16.07.2021. At about 8:30 p.m., Respondent No. 1, while driving his Mahindra Bolero bearing registration No. CG-07/CD-6995 (offending vehicle) in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, collided with the appellant’s vehicle, causing substantial damage thereto. The said vehicle also collided with and completely damaged the two-wheeler scooter bearing registration No. CG-07/LS-9283 belonging to Smt. Sandhya Anodhe, which was parked at the same place. As a result of the accident caused by Respondent No. 1, the front portion, side portion and wheel area of the appellant’s I-10 car bearing registration No. CG-07/MB-4223 were damaged. The matter was reported to Police Station Nevai and was thereafter presented before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G.). Thereafter, the appellant filed a claim before the insurer of her own vehicle for a sum of Rs. 80,000/- towards the total repair cost of the car, out of which Rs. 52,700/- was borne by the Oriental Insurance Company and the balance amount was paid by the appellant. Subsequently, the appellant filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal against the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, i.e., Mahindra Bolero bearing registration No. CG-07/CD-6995, claiming a total compensation of Rs. 3,07,500/- towards repair expenses, loss of use and consequential financial loss, mental agony, and diminution in resale value. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned dismissal order passed by the learned Tribunal is erroneous and contrary to law. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its proper context and has erroneously dismissed the claim petition. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the 3 claim petition was maintainable notwithstanding the fact that the appellant had received a part of the compensation from the insurer of her own vehicle. The appellant was entitled to claim the remaining amount towards the damage caused to her vehicle from the third party responsible for the accident. Therefore, it is prayed that the appeal be allowed and the appellant be awarded the remaining amount towards the repair expenses of the vehicle. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record, including the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal. 8. Upon a close scrutiny of the evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the appellant’s claim petition for compensation, holding, in paragraph 17 of the impugned award, that after having received a sum of Rs. 52,700/- from the insurer of his own vehicle, the appellant had no right to maintain another claim petition arising out of the same accident against Respondent No. 3, the insurer of the offending vehicle, on the basis of third-party liability. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal held that the claim petition filed by the appellant was not maintainable. 9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court, in view of the law laid down in Sunil Bajaj v. Triyambak Sharma and Others , 2012 (4) CGLJ 347, finds no infirmity or illegality in the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. 11. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge $ourabh