Santosh Banjare vs Raisen Manhar
2026 Latest Caselaw 2021 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Santosh Banjare vs Raisen Manhar on 23 April, 2026

Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal

Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal

                                                  1




                                                                   2026:CGHC:18634
                                                                                  NAFR



                       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                       MAC No. 1419 of 2019

            1 - Santosh Banjare S/o Darasram Banjare Aged About 40 Years R/o
            Khamtardih Bilha Thana And Tahsil District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District :
            Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
                                                                      --- Appellant (s)
                                               versus
            1 - Raisen Manhar S/o Tihuram Manhar Aged About 37 Years R/o Barttori
            Thana And Tahsil Bilha District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Hall Mukam - Cheudih
            Thana- Pamgarh District Janjgri Champa Chhattisgarh Tharough Owner Cum
            Driver The Offending Vehicle Auto No. C.G. 11/a.D. /8019), District : Janjgir-
            Champa,                                                         Chhattisgarh

            2 - Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd Through Manager Branch
            Office 3rd Floor Guru Kripa Tower Behind Of Bank I.C. I.C.I. Byapra Vihar
            Road Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending
            Vehicle Auto No. C.G. 11/a.D. /8019), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

                                                                       --- Respondent(s)

For Appellant (s) : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. S.K. Kushwaha, Advocate. No.2

1 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Third Bank, Gurukripa Tower, Beside Icici Bank, Vyapar Vihar Road Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Insurance Company Of Vehicle Auto No. C.G. 11/ A. D. -8019), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

---Appellant (s) Versus

Digitally signed by KRISHNA KRISHNA KUMAR KUMAR BARVE BARVE Date:

2026.04.23 18:14:05 +0530

1 - Santosh Banjare S/o Darasram Banjare Aged About 40 Years R/o Khamhardih, Bilha, Thana And Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

(Claimant), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Raisen Manhar S/o Tihu Ram Manhar Aged About 37 Years R/o Bartori, Thana And Tehsil Bilha, District Cheudih, Thana Pamgarh, Distict Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh (Driver And Owner Of Vehicle Auto No. C.G. 11/ A.D. 8019, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondent(s)

For Appellant (s) : Mr. S.K. Kushwaha, Advocate.

For Respondent         : Miss Pranoti Das on behalf of Mr. Goutam
No.1                      Khetrapal, Advocate.


                                        (Single Bench)

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 23/04/2026

1. Against the impugned award dated 6th April, 2019 passed by the 3rd

Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the

Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.582/2015, MAC No.1332/2019 has

been filed by the Insurance Company seeking setting aside of the

impugned award and to exonerate it from liability to pay compensation,

whereas MAC No.1419/2019 has been filed by the claimant seeking

enhancement of the amount of compensation.

2. Since the aforesaid Appeals arise out of same accident, they are clubbed

together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common

order.

3. Mr. S.K. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance

Company would submit that the offending vehicle did not have valid

permit to ply on the road and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not

liable. He further submits that towards future prospects and other heads,

compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper.

4. On the other hand, Miss Pranoti Das, learned counsel for respondent

No.1 would support the impugned award.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival

submissions made herein-above and went through the records with

utmost circumspection.

6. Though the Insurance Company has taken a general defence at para-14

of the written statement that there is violation of terms of policy, as the

driver, being owner of the offending vehicle, did not have valid permit

and fitness, which the Claims Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and

documentary evidence, has reached to the conclusion that with regard to

valid permit, no investigation was done by the Insurance Company and

no evidence has been led in this regard. Therefore, it cannot be said that

the offending vehicle did not have valid permit to ply the vehicle on

road.

7. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

appeal preferred by the Insurance Company deserves to be and is hereby

dismissed. Since respondent No.1 has already preferred separate appeal,

cross-appeal preferred by him is dismissed.

8. Mr. A.L. Singroul, learned counsel for the claimant would submit that

towards future prospects proper compensation has not been awarded and

towards other heads also, proper compensation has not been awarded.

9. In that view of the matter, considering the injuries sustained by the

claimant, it would be appropriate to enhance award amount. As such,

the claimant will be entitled for the following compensation as

computed by this Court:-

Sr. No. Heads Compensation Compensation awarded by the awarded by this Tribunal Court

1. Loss of income Rs.6,000/- x 12 = Income as per Rs.72,000/-, minimum wages Rs.6,000/- x 12 = Rs.72,000/-

2. Future prospect 40% x72,000/- 40% (future =28,800/- prospect) Rs.72,000/- + Rs.28,800/- = Rs.1,00,800/-

3. Multiplier 15 Rs.1,00,800/- x 15 = Rs.15,12,000/-

4. 40% disability, 15 x Rs.28,800/- = Rs.15,12,000/- x Rs.4,32,000/- 40% = Rs.6,04,800/-

5. Loss of income Rs.24,000/- Rs.24,000/-

during treatment

6. Medical expenses Rs.14,014/- Rs.14,014/-

7. Pain & suffering Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/-

8. Loss of future Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/-

treatment

9. Transportation & Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/-

Special diet

10. Loss of amenities - Rs.1,500/-

11. Transporting - Rs.1,000/-

expenses

12. Loss of attendant - Rs.1,000/-

13. Mental agony - Rs.1,000/-

Grand Total Rs.5,25,014/- Rs.7,02,314/-

10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of

₹5,25,014/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹7,02,314/-.

Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹5,25,014/-, the claimant is held to

be entitled to an additional amount of ₹1,77,300/-. The Insurance

Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation within a

period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per

annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal

till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall

remain intact.

11. In the result, the Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is

dismissed and the Appeal filed by the claimant is allowed to the extent

indicated above.

Sd/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Barve