1 2026:CGHC:2385 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 827 of 2024  Abdul Rasid S/o Abdul Rahim Aged About 58 Years R/o Village- Badwar, Pratappur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1. Jiyaul Mustafa @ Pappu S/o Shri Mujahid Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Badwar, Pratappur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh (Vehicle Driver) 2. Chandrika Prasad Yadav S/o Shri Ammalal Yadav R/o Village- Badwar, Pratappur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh (Vehicle Owner) 3. Branch Manager Royal Sunderam General Insurance Company Limited (Insurance Company), Divisional Office-Sabha Trade Center, First Floor, Opposite Rajeev Plaza, Near Bus Stand, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/Claimant : Mr. Prashant Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 3/ : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate Insurance Company Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15.01 .2026 1. With the consent of the parties matter is heard finally. 2. The claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation assailing the award passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratappur, District Surajpur passed in Claim Case No. 27/2020 dated 31.01.2023, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,89,850/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on account of injuries sustained by the claimant. 3. Facts in brief are that on 24.11.2018 at around 9:00 am, the claimant along SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.01.16 16:07:16 +0530 2 with his brother-in-law were going to Ambikapur on a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 15 DF 2454, near village Badwar, Parsadohar, the motorbike was dashed by a Tractor bearing registration No. CG 15 DG 3141. In the said accident, the claimant sustained grievous multiple injuries including fracture of tibia bone of right leg. The claimant filed a claim case under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, wherein, he pleaded that he was a labourer earning Rs. 21,000/- per month and at the time of accident, his age was 58 years. He claimed a sum of Rs. 7,09,990/-. The driver, owner as well as the Insurance Company filed reply and denied the averments. The learned Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence, and thereafter, award was passed. 4. Mr. Prashant Sahu, Advocate would submit that the claimant sustained serious injuries including fracture of tibia bone of right leg which resulted in disability to the extent of 50%. He would submit that disability certificate was issued by the Medical Board vide Ex. P/59. He would contend that the learned Tribunal assessed functional disability 25%. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has granted meager compensation on conventional heads. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has considered the income of the claimant Rs. 4,500/-. He would pray to enhance the compensation. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Anupam Dubey would oppose. He would submit that disability certificate(Ex. P/59) was issued by the Medical Board for period of two years only and the injury sustained by the claimant was treatable and likely to be improved. He would contend that the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the claimant Rs. 4,500/- and granted compensation accordingly. He would submit that the learned Tribunal considered functional disability 25% and applied multiplier of 3. It is 3 contended by Mr. Anupam Dubey that the age of the claimant at the time of accident was 72 years. He would submit that the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 21,350/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 10,000/- for conveyance, Rs. 5,000/- for special diet, Rs. 5,000/- for pain & suffering. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. He would pray to dismiss the appeal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The claimants suffered fracture of tibia bone of right leg, which resulted in 50% disability and the disability certificate was issued by the Medical board vide Ex. P/59. Dr. Rajeev Tiwari (AW/3) proved the contents of disability certificate. The learned Tribunal assessed functional disability 25%. The age of the claimant was 72 years as held by the learned Tribunal, thus, multiplier of 3 was applied. The learned Tribunal further granted compensation for medical expenses, conveyance, special diet and pain & suffering. Rs. 54,000/- was granted for loss of earing, Rs. 40,500/- was granted assessing functional disability 25% and applying multiplier of 3. 8. Taking into consideration the fact that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, instant appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant