Partly allowed

Nawajuddin Warsi v. Dileshwar Sinha

Chhattisgarh HC16 Sept 2026MAC/1261/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court condoned a 69-day delay in preferring an appeal challenging a motor accident compensation award. The court enhanced the compensation by adding Rs. 40,000 for loss of income, transportation, and attendant charges, raising the total to Rs. 1,40,650.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by Rs. 40,000/- to a total of Rs. 1,40,650/-. Additional amount carries interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim application.

Nawajuddin Warsi Vs Dileshwar Sinha — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

CGHC010204792026

2026:CGHC:40570

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 1261 of 2026

¶7

1 - Nawajuddin Warsi S/o Naruddin Warsi Aged About 19 Years R/o Ward No. 08, Nayapara Mahasamund, Police Station Mahasamund, Tahsil Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Dileshwar Sinha S/o Sankar Sinha, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Bhalesar, Police Station Mahasamund, Tahsil And DistrictMahasamund (C.G.) (Driver Of Motorcycle C G -06- G W-7274)

¶11

2 - Hansdev Dongre S/o Harish Dongre Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Khamhariya Salhebhatha Police Station- Komakhan, Tahsil Bagbahara, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) (Owner Of Motorcycle C G -06- G W-7274)

¶12

3 - S. B. I. General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Office 4th Floor Pujari Chamber N.H. 43, Pachpedi Naka Raipur, Tahsil Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Motorcycle C G -06- G W- 7274)

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

For Appellant/Claimant : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : None.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board

¶16

(17.09.2026)

¶17

Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.09.17 17:01:43 +0530

¶18

¶19

1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2026, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶20

2. Upon due consideration, I.A. No. 01/2026 is allowed. Delay of 69 day in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶21

3. With the consent of the parties, the matter was heard finally.

¶22

4. 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 01.12.2025, passed in M.A.C. No.H-40/2025, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,00,650/as compensation to the claimant/appellant for the injuries sustained in a road accident that took place on 16.09.2024.

¶23

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant sustained grievous injuries to the leg, waist, and other parts of the body as a result of the accident, and he was admitted to the hospital for about 5 days. However, the learned Claims Tribunal failed to award any compensation under the heads of loss of income during treatment, transportation, attendant charges, and special diet. Therefore, it is prayed that the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal be suitably enhanced.

¶24

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company 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.

¶25

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

¶26

8. In the case in hand, a perusal of the documents on record

¶27

¶28

indicates that the appellant suffered grievous injuries, but he has not produced any documents or medical certificate for any permanent disability. As evidenced by Ex. A-9, the appellant was admitted to Soham Hospital, Mahasamund (C.G.), from 16.09.2024 to 20.09.2024 (for about 5 days), where he underwent treatment for his accident-related injuries. The appellant produced medical bills totalling Rs. 70,650/- (Ex. A- 09 and Ex. A-11 to Ex. A-27), which were duly considered by the Claims Tribunal. However, this Court observes that apart from documented expenses, a victim inevitably incurs miscellaneous out-of-pocket expenses during hospitalisation and treatment for which formal receipts cannot be produced. Consequently, it is reasonable to award Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of income during treatment, transportation, attendance charge and special diet. Accordingly, the impugned award stands modified to this extent.

¶29

9. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is calculating the compensation as below:-

¶30

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
1	Towards medical expenses	Rs. 70,650/-	Rs. 70,650/-
2.	Towards physical pain and suffering	Rs. 15,000/-	Rs. 15,000/-
3.	Towards mental agonyand suffering	Rs. 15,000/-	Rs. 15,000/-
4.	Towards loss of income during treatment, transportation, attendance charge and special diet	Nil	Rs. 40,000/-
	Total	Rs. 1,00,650/-	Rs. 1,40,650/-

¶31

10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,650/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,40,650/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of

¶32

¶33

Rs.1,00,650/-, the appellant is held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.40,000/- . The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 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.

¶34

11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.

¶35

12. 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 claimants resides.

¶36

Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶37

H.L. Sahu

Nawajuddin Warsi v. Dileshwar Sinha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nawajuddin Warsi v. Dileshwar Sinha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases