Chattisgarh High Court
Neelu Sahu vs Roshan Nirmalkar on 21 July, 2026
1
Digitally signed
by SHUBHAM
SHUBHAM SINGH
SINGH RAGHUVANSHI
RAGHUVANSHI Date:
2026.07.28
11:05:38 +0530
CGHC010281472020 2026:CGHC:31046
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 52 of 2021
Neelu Sahu S/o Brijlal Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Behind Shiv
Nagar Police Chowki, Pandri Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
(Claimant), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
1 - Roshan Nirmalkar S/o Indraman Nirmalkar Aged About 25 Years
R/o Village Khouli, Police Station Kharora, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh. (Driver And Registered Owner Of Vehicle Motor Cycle
Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04-Hp-7179)., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2 - The I.C.I.C.I. Lombard Insurance Company Limited Through
Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Vanijiya Bhawan, Devendra
Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle
Motor Cycle Bearing Registration No. C.G. -04-Hp-7179)., District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
For Appellants : Ms. Pooja Yadav, Advocate on behalf
of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate
For Respondents No.2 : Mr. Tessey Abraham, Advocate
2
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
(21.07.2026)
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the
appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of
compensation, challenging the impugned award dated
31.01.2020, passed in Claim Case No.593/2016, whereby
the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of
Rs.60,000/- for the injuries sustained by Neelu Sahu in a
road accident which took place on 28.05.2015.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding lesser
amount of compensation. Further, the amounts awarded
under the heads of loss of income, pain & suffering,
transportation etc. are highly inadequate and need to be
enhanced. Therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the
compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may
suitably be enhanced. Further, though there was a breach
of insurance policy conditions but, at the time of accident,
the vehicle was insured, therefore, an order of pay and
recover may be passed.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that the
Claims Tribunal after appreciating oral and documentary
evidence available on record rightly awarded the
compensation amount. Hence, the compensation awarded
by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no
interference.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that
there was a breach of insurance policy and the Claims
Tribunal haf exonerated the insurance company to pay the
3
compensation.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered
their rival submissions made herein-above and went
through the records with utmost circumspection.
6. The accident took place on 28.05.2015. The Appellant
sustained fracture in right leg and remained hospitalized
for 4 days. The Claims Tribunal after appreciation of oral
and documentary evidence available on record awarded
total Rs.60,000/- in favour of the Appellant. The Claims
Tribunal has not found any permanent disability. Towards
loss of income, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.14,000/- and
towards pain and suffering, inconvenience and nutritious
diet, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- which are on
lower side. Considering the nature of injuries, period of
hospitalization and treatment, the compensation deserves
to be re-computed as under:
Sr. Heads Compensation Compensation
No. awarded by the awarded by
Tribunal this Court
1 Medical Expenses Rs. 36,000/- Rs. 36,000/-
2. Loss of income Rs.14,000/- Rs.18,000/-
3. Pain and Suffering, Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 20,000/-
nutritious diet,
transportation and
for attendant
Rs. 60,000/- Rs. 74,000/-
7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of
compensation of Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Claims
Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.74,000/-. Hence, the appellant
is held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.14,000/-.
The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest
4
@ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
application before the Claims Tribunal till its realization.
Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain
intact.
8. The Claims Tribunal found a breach of the policy
conditions inasmuch as, at the time of the accident, driver
Roshan Nirmalkar did not possess a valid and effective
driving licence. However, the Tribunal did not pass an order
for “pay and recover” as prayed for by the
appellant/claimant before this Court. In view of the above,
and applying the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Manuara Khatun and Others
Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh and Others, reported in (2017) 4
SCC 796, I direct Respondent No.2/Insurance Company to
first pay the amount of compensation and thereafter recover
the same from the owner/driver by filing an execution
petition before the concerned Claims Tribunal.
9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the
impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated
herein-above.
10. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimant in
writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against
the award made by the concerned Tribunal. The said
communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and
the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co-
ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area
wherein the claimant resides.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
-Shubham
