1 2026:CGHC:15400 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 881 of 2026 Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through Officer Incharge, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Plot No. 1, Fourth Floor, Maruti Heights, Near Maruti Dealership, G.E. Road, District Raipur (C.G.)(Insurer Of Truck Bearing Registration No. Cg 18- H- 7536) ... Appellant versus 1 - Bhoj Kumar S/o Rajesh Kumar Ratre Aged About 35 Years R/o Village And Post Office Badgaon P.S. Doundilohara, District Balod, C.G. 2 - N. Ravinarayan S/o N. Bhaskar Rao Through Ajay Vishwas, S/o Anup Kumar Vishwas, R/o Charoda, Deendayal Upadhyay Colony, H. No. 143, 144, P.S. Bhilai-3, District Durg, C.G. (Driver Of Truck Bearing Registration No. CG 18-H-7536). 3 - Ajay Vishwas S/o Anup Kumar Vishwas R/o Charoda, Deendayal Upadhyay Colony, H. No. 143, 144, P.S. Bhilai-3, District Durg, C.G. (Owner Of Truck Bearing Registration No. CG 18-H-7536). ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate {Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 02/04/2026 1. Heard on application (I. A. No. 02 of 2026), for condonation of delay of 48 days in filing the appeal. AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.04.15 18:41:08 +0530 2 2. On due consideration and for the reason stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 48 in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Heard on admission. 4. Challenge in this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, “MV Act, 1988”) is to the award dated 14.10.2025 passed by 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 224 of 2021 whereby the learned Claims Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs. 6,81,480/- in favour of the respondent No. 1/claimant on account of injuries sustained by him in the motor accident which took place on 06.1.2016. 5. As per pleadings made in the claim application, the offending vehicle (Truck) bearing registration No. CG18-H/7536 was parked by respondent No. 2 rashly & negligently on a midway in the night without there being indicator on, at that time, the respondent No. 1/claimant , who was sitting on Motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-04-HR-5901 as pillion rider along with rider Tekchand, collided with the said stationary truck (offending vehicle), as a result thereof, respondent No. 1 sustained multiple injuries on his person whereas rider of the motorcycle had died on the spot itself. Thus, respondent No. 1 claimed compensation of Rs. 13,80,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. 6. Respondent No. 2 remained ex parte and did not file any written statement. 7. Appellant /Insurance Company had filed written statement denying the averments in the claim application. It is stated that claim application filed by respondent No. 1 /claimant is not maintainable, as there is no negligence on the part of the driver of offending vehicle because no 3 offence under Section 304(A of IPC was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. That apart, the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid & effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle at the time of accident and the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal appears to be on higher side, which deserves to be reduced suitably. 8. The Claims Tribunal framed as many as four issues on the basis of above broad pleadings made in the claim application and decided the same in favour of the claimant and has awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,81,480/- in favour of the respondent No. 1/claimant and held that appellant/ Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant, however, directed the appellant/Insurance Company to first pay the award amount to the claimant and then to recover it from the respondent No. 1 & 2. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on higher side, which deserves to be reduced suitably. He submits that there was negligence on the part of the respondent No. 1. He next submits that though the Learned Claims Tribunal has exonerated the appellant /Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimant, however, directed the appellant / Insurance Company to first pay amount of compensation to the claimant and then to recover it from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. He also submits that for future treatment, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was awarded without there being any cogent and prudent evidence on record. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant / Insurance Company and perused the material available on record. 4 11. Perusal of the impugned award would indicate that on account of motor accident that took place on 06.01.2026, the respondent No. 1/claimant sustained severe injuries on his person resulting into permanent disability to the extent of 35 %. Disability Certificate has also been filed by the claimants to show the aforesaid permanent disablement of the claimant in his left hand. 12. The Claims Tribunal assessed the notional income of deceased as Rs. 6,000/- per month and added 40% towards future prospect in the income of the respondent and after due deduction, awarded a total compensation in following manner :- Sr. No . Heard Amount awarded 1. Loss of income/ permanent disablement Rs.5,64,480/- 2. Medical expenses Rs.00/- 3. For Transportation Rs. 07,000/- 4. For Nutrition Rs.10,000/- 5. For Assistance Rs.25,000/- 6. For future treatment Rs.50,000/- Total Rs.6,81,480/- 13. So far as contention of counsel for the appellant that without there being any cogent evidence, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was awarded towards future prospect is concerned, in the opinion of this Court, it is liable to be rejected as according to the pleading made in the claim application, on account of the accident occurred on 06.01.20216, 5 claimant sustained multiple injuries on his person including permanent disability to the extent of 35%, as such, naturally, this court can presume that future treatment of the claimant would be required, therefore, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards future treatment, which cannot be said to be inappropriate in the facts & circumstances of the case. Thus, this contention raised by counsel for the appellant/claimant is hereby rejected. 14. So far as plea of contributory negligence raised by the appellant/Insurance Company is concerned, the appellant/Insurance Company did not examine the driver of the offending vehicle to prove this fact, hence, this contention is also liable to be and is hereby rejected. 15. So far as contention of learned counsel for the appellant in respect of applying doctrine of “pay & recover” is concerned, in view of judgment of Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others1, this contention is also not sustainable and is liable to be and is hereby rejected. 16. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ami 1 (2004) 3 SCC 297