Partly allowed¶28

Premlal Sahu v. Mahendra Kumar Sangode

Chhattisgarh HC9 Apr 2026MAC/602/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Enhancement of motor accident compensation under Section 173 MV Act; claimant Premlal Sahu injured in motorcycle-truck accident dated 25.04.2016; offending vehicle Truck No. MH-35-K-3674 driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 (P.S.P. Lagirim Private Limited), insured with respondent No. 3 (National Insurance Company Limited); MACT Durg award dated 27.02.2021 in Claim Case No. 05/2017 awarded Rs.38,740/- against claim of Rs.25,30,000/-; High Court of Chhattisgarh enhanced compensation by Rs.20,000/- payable within 60 days; appeal partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Additional compensation of Rs.20,000/- awarded to the appellant, to be deposited by respondent No. 3 / Insurance Company within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; appeal partly allowed with modification in the impugned award. ¶28

Premlal Sahu Vs Mahendra Kumar Sangode — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

Digitally signed ASHISH by ASHISHTIWARI TIWARI Date:2026.04.17 19:36:47 +0530

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.A.(C) No. 602 of 2021

¶3

Premlal Sahu, S/o Banwali Ram Sahu, aged about 36 years, R/o Village Jarvay, Post Surdung, Police Station Bhilai - 3, District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶4

--- Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

1 - Mahendra Kumar Sangode S/o Prahlad Sangode Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Rajoli, Police Station Meshori, District Gondia (Maharastra) (Wrongly Written As Behind) At Present R/o Khursipar, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. Mh 35, K - 3674)., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶7

2 - P.S.P. Lagirim Private Limited Through Manager, Shop No. 4, Ramshanti Complex, Gandhi Chowk Gondia District Gondia (Maharastra), (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. Mh - 35, K - 3674)., District : Gondiya *, Maharashtra

¶8

3 - The National Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Akash Ganga Premises, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. Mh - 35, K - 3674)

¶9

--- Respondents

¶10

For Appellant : Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Shri Prasanjit Dutta, Advocate.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

10/04/2026

¶14

This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) by the appellant / claimant, challenging the award dated 27.02.2021 passed by the I Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 05/2017.

¶15

By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs.25,30,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.38,740/- partly allowing an application under section 166 of MV Act filed by the appellant / claimant on account of injuries sustained by the appellant in an accident that took place on 25.04.2016 by rash and negligent driving

¶16

-2-

¶17

of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. MH-35-K-3674 by respondent No. 1 / driver, owned by respondent No. 2 / Owner and insured with the respondent No. 3 / Insurance company.

¶18

As per the pleadings in the claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, on the date of accident i.e. 25.04.2016. The appellant, along with his friend as a pillion rider, was going to Village Hathkhoj on a motorcycle for a medical check-up with the doctor. While returning to his home, when they reached infront of Telecom, at that time, the driver of the offending truck by driving in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of the appellant. As a result of the said accident, the appellant sustained severe injuries on various parts of the body. The accident was reported to Police Station Purani Bhilai for the offense punishable under sections 279, 337 and 338 of the I.P.C. was registered against the driver of the vehicle.

¶19

The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by filing joint written statement denied the averments of the claim application. Accident had not due to self negligent of the motorcycle vehicles and they has been falsely implicated.

¶20

The respondent No. 3 also filed its statement and denied the averments, and in usual course pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license. No documents regarding the medical treatment filed. Thus, the application may be rejected.

¶21

On the basis of above broad pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed six issues and decided the same in favour of the appellant / claimant and awarded the above stated compensation.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant / claimant submits that income of the appellant is on the lower side which requires enhancement.

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 / Insurance Company support the award and submits that just amount of compensation has been awarded.

¶24

-3-

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission and also perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶26

To make compensation just, in addition to the amount already awarded by the learned Tribunal, Rs.20,000/- is awarded to appellant which shall be deposited by the respondent No. 3 / Insurance Company within a period of 60 days from the date

¶27

of receipt of copy of this order.

¶28

Appeal thus partly allowed with modification in the award impugned to the above

¶29

extent.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶32

Ashish

Premlal Sahu v. Mahendra Kumar Sangode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premlal Sahu v. Mahendra Kumar Sangode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Soniya Vs Janki Prasad

Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Satyendra Singh

Smt. Parma Bai Joshi Vs Shivshankar Joshi

Vidyasagar Vikram Singh Vs Smt. Sushitma

Sukhlal Vs Ratmaniya

Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Rajkumari Verma Alias Damini