Smt. Bisni Bai Nishad Vs Gopichand Sinha

Appellants No.2 & 3 are minor on behalf of through their legal guardian mother Smt. Bisni Bai Nishad, appellant No.1. All are R/o Village-Amdi, Post- Parsada, Police StationAbhanpur, Tahsil And DistrictRaipur Chhattisgarh(Applicants/claimants)

¶14

... Appellants

¶15

versus

¶16

Gopichand Sinha S/o Kanhaiyalal Sinha Aged About 33 Years Occupation- Painter, Village-Amdi, Post- Parsada, Police Station- Abhanpur, Tahsil And District- Raipur Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No.1) (Registered Owner Of Vehicle Motor Cycle Bearing Registration No. CG/04/MN/2073).

¶17

2

¶18

MAC No. 995 of 2023

¶19

The Magmea H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Dainik Bhaskar Complex, Rajbandha Maidan, Fifth Floor, Raipur DistrictRaipur Chhattisgarh (Non- Applicant No. 2) (Insurer Of Vehicle Motor Cycle Bearing Registration No. CG/04/MN/2073).

¶20

... Respondents

¶21

For Appellants :- Ms. Pooja Yadav, Advocate, on behalf Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate.

¶22

For Respondent No.2 :- Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate.

¶23

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board

¶24

03.12.2025

¶25

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 09.02.2023 passed by the 2^nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 1372/2021, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the claim application of the claimants and awarded compensation amount to the tune of 5,00,000/-₹ along with interest to the claimants.

¶26

Ms. Pooja Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding

¶27

3

¶28

MAC No. 995 of 2023

¶29

less amount of compensation in the facts of the case which deserves to be enhanced.

¶30

Mr. Sourabh Gupta, learned counsel for the Insurance Company/respondent No.2, would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and support the impugned award. He would also submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference.

¶31

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶32

The Claims Tribunal while allowing the claimants’ application filed under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988, has awarded 5,00,000/- along with increase of 5% and₹ also with interest from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization, which in my considered opinion is correct finding of fact, based on evidence available on record and the same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost(s).

¶33

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶34

Ankit

Smt. Bisni Bai Nishad v. Gopichand Sinha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Bisni Bai Nishad v. Gopichand Sinha

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

Doman Meenpal Vs Punaram @ Raju

Avinash Yadu Vs Dilip Kumar Bhandalkar

Jameer Miya Vs Sushil Minj

Smt. Reema Devi Vs Pawan Kumar Gupta

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Nirmala Patil

South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs Sarwar Ali