GULSHER KHAN @ GULSHER ALI, (CHINTU) vs MUKESH KUMAR YADAV

1

CGHC010004532023 2026:CGHC:38933
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 114 of 2023
1 - Gulsher Khan @ Gulsher Ali, (Chintu) S/o Shri Umed Khan Aged About 28
Years R/o Beech Para, Chilhati, Police Station Sarkanda District Bilaspur
(C.G.)...............(Claimant) ... Appellant

NIKITA
JAIN
versus
Digitally signed
by NIKITA JAIN
Date:
2026.09.05
12:17:36
+0530
1 - Mukesh Kumar Yadav S/o Jagdish Prasad Yadav Aged About 29 Years
R/o Village Matiyari, Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur (C.G.)..........
(Driver Of Offending Vehicle Hywa No. C.G.10 AE- 8109)
2 - Smt. Urmila Agrahari W/o Shri Rakesh Agrahari Aged About 40 Years R/o
Ward No.1, Village Matiyari, Janji, Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur
(C.G.)............(Owner Of Offending Vehicle Hywa No. C.G.10 AE- 8109)
3 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Limited, L.I.C. Building, 1st Floor, Magar Para Road,
Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.).............(Insurer Of Offending
Vehicle Hywa No. C.G.10 AE- 8109)
Respondents
For Appellant : Shri Keshav Dewangan, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 & 2
:
Shri Prashant Gupta, Advocate.
For Respondent No.3
:
Shri Anil Gulati, Advocate.

2
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment On Board
02.09.2026
1. The Claimant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1988')
questioning the legality and propriety of the award dated 05.11.2022
passed by the learned Eighth Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in
Claim Case No.970/2021, whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed
the claim in part by awarding a sum of Rs.1,12,130/- with 9% interest
per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of
actual payment.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 01.11.2018, the appellant
-Gulsher was travelling towards his home at Chilhati on motorcycle
bearing registration No. CG-10/AF-3684 along with his friend Taresh
Yadav. At about 10:30 p.m., near the mosque at Chilhati, Taresh had
stopped the motorcycle to drop the appellant when Respondent No.1,
namely, Mukesh Kumar Yadav, was driving a heavy vehicle at a high
speed in a rash and negligent manner on the wrong side of the road
and came from the opposite direction and hit the appellant, his friend
and the motorcycle. After the accident, the offending vehicle fled from
the spot. As a result of which, Taresh Yadav died on the spot, while the
appellant sustained multiple injuries, including loss/fracture of several
teeth and fracture of two fingers of his left hand, and became
unconscious, giving rise to the filing of the claim petition under Section
166 of the Act, 1988 by the Claimant, and, thus, claimed total amount
of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,70,000/- under various heads.

3
3. Being aggrieved, the Claimant has preferred this appeal. Shri Keshav
Dewangan, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that
the appellant sustained fracture injuries to two fingers of his left hand in
the accident and remained admitted in the hospital for about seven
days. It is contended further that the learned Tribunal has not awarded
adequate compensation towards loss of income during treatment,
attendant charges, conveyance, nutritious food, physical and mental
pain and suffering, and medical expenses. As per the claim made by
the appellant, a total amount of Rs.1,12,130/- was claimed under these
heads, comprising Rs.33,600/- towards loss of income during
treatment, Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.5,000/- towards
conveyance, Rs.5,000/- towards nutritious food, Rs.10,000/- towards
physical and mental pain and Rs.58,530/- towards medical expenses. It
is contended further that while determining the amount of
compensation, the Tribunal ought to have awarded just and fair
compensation to the Claimant.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No.3/Insurance
Company submits that the learned Claims Tribunal, after appreciating
the oral and documentary evidence on record, has rightly awarded the
compensation. It is argued further that the appellant suffered fracture of
only two fingers of the left hand and was hospitalized for about seven
days. There is no material on record to establish any grievous or
permanent disabling injury, permanent functional disability, loss of
earning capacity or any other serious consequence warranting
enhancement of compensation. Hence, the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is just and proper and calls for no interference.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival

4
submissions made herein-above and have perused the record with
utmost circumspection.
6. The Claims Tribunal, after appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence available on record, found that the appellant sustained
fracture injuries to two fingers of his left hand and remained
hospitalized for seven days. No sufficient material has been brought on
record to establish any permanent functional disability or grievous
consequence arising out of the injuries. The Tribunal has awarded a
total sum of Rs. 1,12,130/-, which in the considered opinion of this
Court is just and proper and warrants no interference.
7. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in
the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. The
appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed .
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge

Nikita