1 2026:CGHC:17219 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1450 of 2019 Branch Manager, H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., Devendra Nagar Tiraha, Chawla Complex, 3rd Floor, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh... (Insurer Of Vehicle Tractor No. CG-04-L-3161) ... Appellant versus 1 - Jitu Sahu, S/o. Mohan Sahu, Aged About 16 Years, Minor Through Father Mohan Sahu, R/o. Village Darba, Thana Mandirhasaud, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh……...(Claimant). 2 - Premlal Jangde, S/o. Bishal Jangde, Aged About 44 Years, R/o. Village Jora, Thana Telibandha, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh……...(Driver Of Vehicle Tractor No. CG-04-L-3161) 3 - Pratap Singh, S/o. Late Indre Singh, Aged About 57 Years, R/o. Village Mandirhasaud, Tahsil Arang, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh... (Owner Of Vehicle Tractor No. CG-04-L-3161). ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate For Respondent No.1. : Mr. Kripesh G. Kela, Advocate ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.04.16 17:37:33 +0530 2 (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 15.04.2026 1. The appellant/insurance company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 03.04.2019 passed in Claim Case No. 242/2016, by which the claim application of the claimant has been allowed and liability has been fastened upon the insurance company to pay the amount of compensation. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company would submit that the deceased was traveling as a gratuitous passenger, which has been proved by Praveen Seejaria (NAW-1), Manager of the insurance company and, as such, the appellant/insurance company is not responsible to pay the amount of compensation. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant/respondent No.1 would support the impugned award and submit the the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the records meticulously. 3 5. Though the insurance company has taken a plea and also sought to lead evidence but the eye-witness Anand Lahri has been examined as AW-2 and he has clearly stated that the deceased was a pedestrian and the offending vehicle dashed him, which he had seen. As such, there is sufficient evidence available on record that the deceased was not traveling as a gratuitous passenger but he was a pedestrian and in that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the insurance company, the same deserves to be and hereby dismissed. 6. So far as the cross-objection filed by the claimant/respondent No.1 is concerned, Rs. 25,000/- is awarded towards attendant and Rs. 75,000/- is awarded for future medical expenses i.e. total Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded in addition to the amount of compensation already awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 days. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 7. Accordingly, the appeal of the insurance company is dismissed and the cross-objection of the claimant/respondent No.1 is partly 4 allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok