##PAGE1##

1 MAC No. 1181 of 2020 & MAC No.1185 of 2020

2026:CGHC:17586 AFR Digitally

ANKIT signed HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR KUMARby ANKIT SINGH KUMAR SINGH

MAC No. 1181 of 2020  Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional

Office, Raj Chamber, Beneath Third Mova Over Bridge, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.....(Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Truck

No. H.R. 38 U.5179)...........Insurer/non-Applicant No.3.

--- Appellant versus

1. Smt. Sarita Sidar W/o Late Laxman Sidar, Aged About 45 Years;

2. Ku. Priti Sidar D/o Late Laxman Sidar, Aged About 18 Years;

3. Ku. Arti Sidar D/o Late Laxman Sidar, Aged About 15 Years, Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sarita Sidar;

All are R/o Village Barpani, Post Sankara, Thana Saliha, Tahsil Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar (Chhattisgarh).................Claimants.

4. Majid Khan S/o Late Janu Musalman R/o Rethora, House No. 165, Police Station And District Luhu Mewat (Hariyana). (Driver Of Offending Vehicle (Truck) No. H.R. 38 U.5179)..........Non-Applicant No.

1/driver.

5. Manjit Singh Rana S/o Jagat Singh Rana, R/o House No. 68, Street No. 4, Near Malerana Road, Adarsh Nagar, Vallabhgarh Faridabad, District Vallabhgarh (Hariyana) (Owner Of Offending Vehicle (Truck)

No. H.R. 38 U.5179...........Non-Applicant No. 2/owner.

--- Respondents

2 MAC No. 1181 of 2020 & MAC No.1185 of 2020

MAC No. 1185 of 2020

 Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd., Through Divisional Office, Raj Chamber, Beneath Third Mova Over Bridge, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle

Truck No. H.R. 38 U. 5179) (Insurer / Non - Applicant No. 3).

--- Appellant Versus

1. Fagnuram Yadav, S/o Late Kaliya Yadav, Aged About 46 Years;

2. Smt. Gori Yadav W/o Fagnuram Yadav, Aged About 43 Years;

3. Arjun Yadav S/o Fagnuram Yadav, Aged About 14 Years, Minor, Through His Natural Guardian Father Fagnuram Yadav;

All are R/o Ward No. - 7, Sankara Thana - Sankara, District -

Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. (Claimants)

4. Majid Khan S/o Late Janu Musalman R/o Rethora, House No. 165, Police Station And District - Luhu Mewat (Hariyana) (Driver Of Offending Vehicle (Truck) No. H.R. 38 U. 5179) (Non-Applicant No. 1/

Driver).

5. Manjit Singh Rana S/o Jagat Singh Rana, R/o House No. 68, Street No. 4, Near Malerana Road, Adarsh Nagar, Vallabhgarh Faridabad, District - Vallabhgarh (Hariyana) (Owner Of Offending Vehicle (Truck)

No. H.R. 38 U. 5179) (Non-Applicant No. 2/ Owner).

--- Respondents For Appellants :- Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate.

For Respondents :- None.

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board

17.04.2026

1. Since the common question of law and facts is involved in the

present case and they have arisen out of common accident, though

3 MAC No. 1181 of 2020 & MAC No.1185 of 2020

different claim cases, they have been clubbed together, heard

together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. These two appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) have been preferred by the appellants/Insurance Company challenging the impugned awards dated 13.03.2020 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Cases No. H-77/2017 and H-75/2017 respectively, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the claimants’ application and awarded compensation along with interest

by fastening the liability upon the appellant/Insurance Company.

3. Mr. Anupam Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance

Company, at the outset, raised contention that the interest should not be awarded on the component of future prospects as it is received in advance enuring to the benefit of claimants only in future and, therefore, 9% interest awarded by the Claims Tribunal is liable to

be set aside on the component of future prospect.

4. None for the respondents/claimants though served.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants/Insurance Company,

c