Pradeep Dilliwar Vs Sumit Dewangan

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:7540

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 213 of 2020

¶6

1 - Pradeep Dilliwar S/o Mahendrakumar Dilliwar Aged About 29 Years R/o Shastri Chowk Potiya Road Dipra Para Durg Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh..(Driver).. (Non Applicant), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶7

2 - Mahendra Kumar Dilliwar S/o Bhushan Lal Aged About 52 Years R/o Shastri Chowk Potiya Road Dipra Para Durg Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh..(Owner) ...(Non Applicant), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Appellants

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Sumit Dewangan S/o Sonu Ram Dewangan Aged About 39 Years R/o Behind Shiv Temple Subhash Nagar Durg Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh...(Applicant), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶11

	... Respondent(s)
For Appellants/ owner and driver of offending vehicle	: Mr. Akash Singh, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate
For respondent/claimant	: Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶13

11.02.2026

¶14

1 . Heard.

¶15

2 . The appellants/owner and driver of the offending vehicle have challenged the award passed by the learned Fourth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg, District Durg(C.G.) in Claim Case No.207/2016 dated 14.03.2019 whereby, the learned Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.4,45,907/- with interest @ 6% per annum on account of injuries sustained by the claimant.

¶16

3 . The facts in brief are that on 19.06.2015 when the claimant-Sumit

¶17

2

¶18

Dewangan was going to work on his motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.07/L.S./8348, the driver of the offending car bearing registration No.C.G.07/Z.D./8208 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed his motorcycle, resultantly, he sustained serious injuries including fracture of right leg.

¶19

4 . The claimant filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Act, wherein, he pleaded that he suffered a permanent disability. It is also pleaded that he was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. He claimed a sum of Rs.9,70,000/-.

¶20

5 . The owner and driver of the offending vehicle filed reply and denied averments made in the claim petition. Learned Tribunal framed issues; parties led evidence and thereafter, award was passed.

¶21

6 . Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/owner and driver of the offending vehicle would submit that the claimant failed to prove his income by leading cogent evidence but the learned Tribunal has assessed his income Rs.8,000/- per month and such finding is erroneous. He would further submit that the claimant failed to examine the treating doctor to prove seriousness of injuries. It is contended that the claimant did not suffer any permanent disability. It is argued that the learned Tribunal awarded compensation on various heads at higher side. He would pray to set aside the award passed by the learned Tribunal.

¶22

7 . On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant would support the award passed by the learned Tribunal.

¶23

8 . I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶24

9 . The claimant specifically pleaded and deposed that in accident, he suffered multiple injuries including fracture of right leg. With regard to fracture of right leg, the claimant exhibited X-ray report vide Ex.P/8 & P/9. He further

¶25

3

¶26

placed on record discharge ticket and medical bills. Learned Tribunal honoured the medical bills submitted by the claimant to the tune of Rs.3,09,111/-. The appellants herein could not prove contrary by leading cogent evidence. Further, learned Tribunal assessed income of claimant Rs.8,000/- and granted compensation of Rs.72,000/- for loss of earning. Learned Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.20,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.10,000/- for special diet; Rs.14,796/- for transportation and Rs.20,000/for attendant and thus, awarded a sum of Rs.4,45,907/-. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal appear to be just and proper, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶27

d /Sd/-/-/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶28

Rekha

Pradeep Dilliwar v. Sumit Dewangan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Dilliwar v. Sumit Dewangan

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. Hembati Shori Vs Girwar Soni

Dashru Gond (Since Dead) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shri Krishna Nagar Residents Association Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hemant Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhananiya Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Principal, Vs Smt. Laxmi Tiwari