Dismissed¶26

Shivprasad v. Dinesh Lanjhiyana

Motor Accident Compensation – Enhancement

Chhattisgarh HC16 Nov 2025MAC/673/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; MAC No. 673 of 2024; decided 17-11-2025 by Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey; appeal under Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act 1988 by claimant Shivprasad against MACT Kabirdham award (Claim Case No. 35/2022, 5.8.2023) of Rs. 2,54,067/- plus 6% interest; accident 20.12.2021 at Jamoniya involving Scooty CG-09-JL-8029; no disability, 11-day hospitalization; medical bills Rs. 1,92,007/- honored; conventional heads held adequate; treating doctor not examined; appeal dismissed, no costs; respondents Dinesh Lanjhiyana and Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Co. Ltd.

What did the court decide?

The claimant submitted medical bills to the tune of Rs. 1,92,007/- and the learned Claims Tribunal honored those medical bills; the appellant's contention that the bills were not honored is incorrect. ¶24

Shivprasad Vs Dinesh Lanjhiyana — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal was inadequate — specifically, whether the medical bills were not honored and the conventional-head amounts were meager — warranting enhancement.

¶20

Court's answer

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The claimant sustained injuries over left leg below knee and other parts of body but there was no serious injury or disability; he remained hospitalized for a period of 11 days.

¶24

Key takeaways

The learned Claims Tribunal awarded just and proper compensation under the conventional heads (loss of earning Rs. 18,560/- for two months; attendant charges Rs. 5,500/-; special diet Rs. 18,000/-; pain and suffering Rs. 15,000/-; transportation Rs. 5,000/-).ratio¶25
The claimant failed to examine the treating doctor to prove the seriousness of the injuries sustained by him.ratio¶25
In view of the above findings, the contention made by Mr. Singroul (counsel for the claimant/appellant) cannot be accepted.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Accident Compensation – Enhancement – Appeal under Section 173 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the injured claimant against the award dated 5.8.2023 in Claim Case No. 35/2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham, whereby Rs. 2,54,067/- with interest @ 6% was awarded for injuries sustained in a collision with Scooty No. CG-09-JL-8029 on 20.12.2021. Held: the claimant sustained no serious injury or disability and was hospitalized for only 11 days; the Tribunal honored the medical bills of Rs. 1,92,007/- in full; the conventional-head awards (loss of earning Rs. 18,560/- for two months, attendant charges Rs. 5,500/-, special diet Rs. 18,000/-, pain and suffering Rs. 15,000/-, transportation Rs. 5,000/-) were just and proper; the claimant failed to examine the treating doctor to prove seriousness of injuries. No good ground to interfere with the award; appeal dismissed, no order as to costs.

¶1

Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.11.18 14:29:33 +0530

2025:CGHC:55856

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 673 of 2024

¶7

Shivprasad S/o Late Santuram Sahu, Aged About 48 Years R/oVillage Sipahi Post And P.S. Fastarpur, District- Mungeli (C.G.). ... Appellant(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1. Dinesh Lanjhiyana S/o Late Krishan Kumar Lanjhiyana R/o Ravidas Nagar Ward No. 04 Kawardha, P.S. Kawardha, DistrictKabirdham (C.G.).

¶10

2. Branch Manager Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Co. Ltd. Neninsula Business Park Tower A- 15th Floor, G.Lk Marg Lower Paril Mumbair (M.H.)

¶11

... Respondent(s)

¶12

For Appellant	: Mr. A.L. Singroul, Adv.
For Respondent No. 1	: Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Adv.
For Respondent No. 2	: Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Adv.

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶14

Judgment On Board

¶15

17-11-2025

¶16

1) Claimant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham in Claim Case No. 35/2022 dated 5.8.2023, whereby

¶17

¶18

learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,54,067/- along with interest @ 6% as compensation on account of injuries sustained by the claimant.

¶19

2) Facts of the present case as per claim application are that on 20.12.2021 at about 2 - 2:30 pm, the claimant was returning to Kawardha on motorcycle. When he reached Jamoniya, the offending vehicle-Scooty bearing registration No. CG-09-JL-8029 being driven in rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of the claimant. In the accident, he sustained serious injuries over left leg and other parts of body. The claimant remained hospitalized at Shri Jagannath Hospital from 21.12.2021 to 31.12.2021. Claimant moved a claim application and claimed a sum of Rs. 24,85,000/-. Driver and owner of the offending vehicle as well as Insurance Company filed reply and denied the averments made in claim application. Learned Claims Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and award impugned was passed.

¶20

3) Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that learned Claims Tribunal has not honored the medical bills submitted by the claimant. He further submits that learned Claims Tribunal has awarded meager amounts on conventional heads. He prays to enhance the compensation.

¶21

4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose. They submit that learned Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation.

¶22

¶23

5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶24

6) Admittedly, claimant sustained injuries over left leg below knee and other parts of body but there was no serious injury or disability. He remained hospitalized for a period of 11 days. Claimant submitted medical bills to the tune of Rs. 1,92,007/- and the learned Claims Tribunal honored those medical bills. Further learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 18,560/- towards loss of earning for period of two months ; Rs. 5,500/- towards attendant charges ; Rs. 18,000/- towards special diet ; Rs. 15,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 5,000/- for transportation.

¶25

7) Evidently, claimant did not suffer disability and remained hospitalized for 11 days and further learned Claims Tribunal has honored the medical bills submitted by the claimant and awarded just and proper compensation under conventional heads. The claimant failed to examine treating doctor to prove seriousness of injuries sustained by him. In view of the above, the contention made by Mr. Singroul cannot be accepted.

¶26

8) Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award impugned. Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed . No order as to cost(s).

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶29

A j i n k y a

Shivprasad v. Dinesh Lanjhiyana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivprasad v. Dinesh Lanjhiyana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Buchki Baghel Vs Jogaram Kodopi

Mayavati Gaharvariya Vs Rajendra Kumar Dubey

Sundri Bai Pradhan Vs Anuret Dhnuhar Urf Anuresh Kumar

Aarti Vs Bhagwan Singh

Jagdish Prasad Vs Ankita Khalkho

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Lalbaran