1 2026:CGHC:15818 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 704 of 2020 Branch Manager Cholamandlam M S General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Behind Axis Bank, Rahul Complex Jagatpur Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh Through Assistant Manager (Legal) Cholamandlam M S General Insurance Company Ltd., 2nd Floor Simaran Tower, In Front Of L I C Building, Vidhansabha Road, Pandri, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.................(Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Ratlal Uranw S/o Mehrulal Uranw Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Amlibhouna Taparda, P.S. And Tehsil Pusour, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh...............Claimant, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Dhajadhar Patel S/o Late Sahdev Patel Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Farshwani, P.S. And Tehsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh....................Owner, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Neelmani Sidar S/o Basant Sidar Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Farshwani, P.S. And Tehsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.................Driver, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sahil Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 07.04.2026 1. In this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) the appellant- Insurance Company is challenging impugned award dt. 30.04.2019, whereby the claim SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN 2 application filed by the claimants has been allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs.15,15,000/- has been awarded to them and said amount is held to be payable by the appellant- Insurance Company herein. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would make sole submission that after assessing the income of the claimant to be Rs.8,10,000/- an additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has also been awarded on the head of permanent mental disability, which ought not to have been granted by the claims tribunal. Hence, the instant appeal be allowed and impugned award is liable to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned award and prays for dismissal of this appeal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. In the case at hand, though claims tribunal has assessed total income of the claimants to be Rs.8,10,000/-, but Rs.1,00,000/- in addition has also been awarded to them on the head of permanent mental disability. However, no amount on the head of future prospect has been awarded to the claimants by the claims tribunal, which, in the considered opinion of this Court, has to be granted. Therefore, even though after assessing total income of the claimants, an additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded to them, but since no amount on the head of future prospect has been awarded by claims 3 tribunal, I do not consider it a fit case warranting interference in the impugned award dated 30.04.2019, passed by the learned Claims Tribunal, with regard to quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. 6. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the appeal. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if