Chattisgarh High Court
Praveen Kumar Sahu vs Ramashankar Tiwari on 19 June, 2026
1
Digitally
signed by
GOPAL SINGH
Date:
2026.07.13
15:22:39
+0530
CGHC010229782026 2026:CGHC:25220
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1340 of 2026
1 - Praveen Kumar Sahu S/o Kriparam Sahu Aged About 60 Years
Residence Of Sadar South Ward Sahubada Dhamtari Tehsil And Distt-
Dhamtari (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
1 - Ramashankar Tiwari S/o Shri Kaushal Prasad Tiwari Aged About 48
Years Residence Magraj Satna P.S. Amarpatan Distt- Maihar (M.P.)
(Driver And Owner Of Vehicle No M.P. 19 G A 3820)
2 - United India Insurace Company Limited Branch Office Rewa Sudhar
Nyay Complex Silmour Chowk Rewa Distt- Rewa (M.P.) (Insurer Of
Vehicle No Mp 19 G A 3820)
... Respondents
For Appellant : Shri Rajendra Patel, Advocate
For Respondents : None
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order on Board
19/06/2026
1. Heard on admission.
2. This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (for short ‘the MV Act‘) assailing the legality,
2
correctness and validity of the award dated 15.5.2026 passed by
the 2nd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari,
District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) (for short ‘Claims Tribunal’) in
Case No.3 of 2025.
3. A claim application under Section 166 of the MV Act was filed by
the appellant/claimant that his Tata Tigor Car bearing
registration No.CG 04 MR 7811 was dashed by the offending
vehicle Pick-up bearing registration No.MP 19 GA 3820 driven
and owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent
No.2.
4. As per the pleadings of the appellant/claimant, on account of the
said accident, his vehicle was badly damaged including its
chassis, engine etc. resulting into a loss of Rs.8,25,000. Thus,
the same was claimed from the respondents.
5. The claim application was resisted by the respondents on various
counts including the insurance company taking a plea of
violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
6. Having framed issues, the Claims Tribunal decided the same and
awarded the compensation of Rs.1,95,000.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Claims
Tribunal has not considered the estimate of Rs.6,00,457
submitted by the appellant and only awarded Rs.1,95,000 on the
basis of the nuksani panchnama (damage report) prepared by
the police authorities during the course of investigation.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
3
impugned award.
9. Perusal of the impugned award reflects that though an estimate
of Rs.6,00,457 (Ex.A15) was filed by the appellant, however, no
witness relating to the estimate or a skilled mechanic was
examined. It is also mentioned in the impugned award that the
appellant has admitted that he has sold the vehicle at Rs.50,000
and moreover, he has also not submitted any bill with respect to
payment of the expenses. The learned Claims Tribunal relied
upon the nuksani panchnama and assessed the damage to
Rs.1,50,000 and thereafter further awarded Rs.25,500 for towing
expenses and Rs.20,000 for financial loss and mental agony and
thus awarded the above stated compensation. In the opinion of
this Court, it has not been proved by the appellant/claimant that
the amount of Rs.6,00,457 was spent by him. Rather, he has
already sold the vehicle. The learned Claims Tribunal has not
committed any error in passing the impugned award. This Court
does not find any scope for enhancement in the compensation.
10. The appeals thus fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission
stage.
11. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
JUDGE
Gopal
