1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 599 of 2015 Judgment reserved on 18.02.2026 Judgment pronounced on 03.03.2026 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisinal Office- Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh, ... Appellant/Respondent No.3 versus 1 – Sonadhar, S/o Bhagturam Kashyap Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Chhapar Bhanpuri, Police Station-Lohandiguda, Jagdalpur, District-Bastar, Chhattisgarh, (Claimant) 2 - Nandu Bhadouriya S/o Late B.R. Singh Bhadouriya Aged About 50 Years R/o Occupation-Contractor, Resident Of Dharampura No01, Jagdalpur, Disttrict-Bastar, Chhattisgarh, (owner of vehicle) (Non-applicant No.1) 3 - Mohit Kumar Boda S/o Pranuram R/o Patelpare, Chhapar Bhanpuri Police Station-Lohandiguda Jagdalpur, District : Bastar (Jagdalpur) (Driver) (Non- applicant No.2) ... Respondents For Appellant : Shri Anil Gulati and Ms. Gunja Taran, Advocates. For Respondent 1 : Shri Uttam Pandey and Mrs. Pooja Sinha, Advocates For Respondents 2 & 3 : None, though served. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) C A V Judgment 1. Heard this appeal filed by the insurance company and cross-appeal filed on behalf of claimant / respondent No.1 for enhancement of compensation. Parties to this appeal are referred hereinafter as per their description before the Claims Tribunal. 2. This is insurer’s appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'MV Act') aggrieved by award dated 22.01.2015 passed Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.03.03 16:52:58 +0530 2 by the learned 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar, plact at Jagdalpur (for short, the learned Tribunal) in Claim Case No.131/2012 whereby the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition awarding total compensation of Rs.60,840/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realisation, while fixing the liability Non- applicant No.3/appellant – insurer herein to pay the total compensation with interest. It is not disputed that Non-applicant No.1 is the owner and Non- applicant No.2 is the driver of the offending vehicle. 3. As per averments in claim petition, on 18.01.2017 the claimant/respondent No.1 was going to sand quarry while sitting in the Truck bearing registration No.C.G./18/ZC/0351 (for short, the offending vehicle Truck) for doing labour work and on way at the turn of Guchguda, the offending vehicle was overturned on account of rash and negligent driver by its driver/Non-applicant No.1, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries including fracture on his right leg and was admitted in Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur where during the course of treatment steel rod was inserted. A claim petition was moved by respondent No.1/claimant seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- on various heads, pleading, inter alia, that at the time of accident he was 18 years old and was doing labour works, through which, he used to earn Rs.2,000/- per month. 3. The claim petition was resisted by the Non-applicants on various grounds, in particular, Non-applicant No.3/insurance company filed its written statement and denied the averments of the claim petition and pleaded that there is breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 4. The learned Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, awarded above stated compensation in favour of the claimant/respondent No.1. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company would submit 3 that though the offending vehicle Truck was insured with the appellant/insurance company on the date of accident, but at that time, the offending vehicle was not having valid permit to ply the same and further submits that the injured/claimant (respondent No.1) is gratuitous passenger, therefore, the appellant/insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. He would further submit that although the claimant/respondent No.1 has filed cross-appeal seeking enhancement, but the learned Claims Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence and material available on record, has compensated the claimant No.1 and that amount of compensation is just and proper and needs no interference. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant/respondent No.1 would submit that the appellant/insurance company has not specifically pleaded in their written statement that the offending vehicle was not having valid permit and besides that, the insurer’s witness A.K.Sinha (N.A.W.1) has also not stated anywhere in his evidence about the offending vehicle being plied without valid permit, although he admitted issuance of insurance policy (Ex.D.1) in favour of the offending vehicle. He would further submit that the injured/claimant was employed as labourer under the employment of Non- applicant No.1/owner and under insurance policy (Ex.D.1), additional premium of Rs.100/- was charged for covering the legal liability for employee/driver and so much so the seating capacity of the offending vehicle is “4”. He would also submit that on account of accident, the respondent No.1 sustained serious injuries including fracture on his right leg and also suffered permanent disability, which was proved by A.W.2 Dr. Lakhan Lal Thakur, who issued disability certificate marked as Ex.P.10 while prescribing the loss of future income and despite that, no amount towards that head has also not been awarded by the Tribunal. He would next submit that on account 4 of sustaining injuries including permanent disability in the accident, the claimant was unable to perform the work and had to suffer permanent disability and despite that, no just and reasonable amount was awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering. He would submit that after accident, the claimant/injured was admitted in Maharani Hospital from 28.06.2007 to 28.07.2007 and expenses arising out of admission in the Hospital have also not been awarded to the claimant. He would also submit that cross-appeal has been preferred by the claimant/respondent No.1 seeking enhancement of compensation. On these premises, he urged that the compensation amount awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal being on lower side, may suitably be enhanced. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award impugned including the record of the Tribunal. 8. Learned Claims Tribunal has framed as many as 5 issues, out of which, issues No.1 & 2 were decided in affirmative by recording a finding that on the date of accident, Non-applicant No.2 was driving the offending vehicle Truck in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, due to which, the claimant sustained serious and grievous injuries including fracture on his right leg over his body. 9. As regards first contention as to the offending vehicle Truck was not having valid permit raised by the appellant/insurance company, as per the statement of N.A.W.1 A.K.Sinha, Branch Manager of the appellant/insurance company, the Ex.D.1, insurance policy, was issued for transportation of goods and the travelling of passengers is prohibited, and therefore, the insurance company is not liable. Further, this witness has not stated about the issuance of permit in favour of the offending vehicle, but in his cross-examination he admitted that according to Ex.D.1 insurance policy, for covering the legal 5 liability of the driver/employee, premium has been obtained. Besides this, it was not specifically pleaded by the insurance company in its written statement that the offending vehicle was not having valid permit. Since there was no specific pleading in its written statement and there was no mention by N.A.W.1 A.K.Sinha in his statement as to whether permit was issued or not, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly held that appellant/insurance company has failed to prove that there was violation of policy condition on the date of accident and I hereby affirm the same. In view of the same, the first contention is rejected. 10. It is not disputed that the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant/insurance company and the claimant/respondent No.1 suffered grievous injuries on account of such accident. As regards claimant being travelled in the offending vehicle Truck as gratuitous passenger, as per the statement of claimant - Sonadhar, examined as A.W.1, he was working as labourer and on the date of accident, i.e., 18.01.2007 he was going in the offending vehicle as labourer and the driver/Non-applicant No.2 – Mohit Kumar was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the vehicle turned turtle causing accident and he sustained injuries including fracture on his right leg. Moreover, Ex.D.1, which is a copy of insurance policy, shows that seating capacity of offending vehicle is “4” and additional premium of Rs.100/- was charged for covering legal liability for employee. Therefore, considering the evidence of the claimant coupled with Ex.D.1, it is held that the injured/claimant was employed under the employment of Non-applicant No.1 and on the date of accident he was going in the offending vehicle as labourer to work in the sand quary and it is also proved that he was covered by the insurance policy. Thus, the second contention raised by the appellant/insurance company that the claimant was 6 travelling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger is also rejected. 11. A.W.2 Dr. Lakhanlal Thakur, who is the member of the District Medical Board, has stated that on 04.02.2008, he examined the claimant – Sonadhar and found permanent disability to the extent of 36% caused due to fracture in right femur bone, however, in his cross-examination, he admitted that without examining the claimant, it is impossible to determine the current status of his disability and on a query being asked to this witness about the percentage of permanent disability in respect of the body as shown in Ex.P.10, he answered that the claimant suffered permanent disability of approximately 12% in relation to his body. Further perusal of statement of claimant would show that he was dropped by the Bus driver at the Bus-Stand from where he has come up the stairs to give his statement and would further reveal that at the request of non-applicant’s lawyer, the claimant demonstrated by walking in front of his lawyer inside the Court room and the Court thought that the claimant appeared capable of walking. Therefore, considering the evidence of A.W.2 Dr. Lakhanlal Thakur coupled with the evidence of claimant, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed permanent disability to the extent of 12%. 12. Ex.P.11 is the discharge certificate issued by the Medical College Associated Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur wherein the injured/claimant was admitted from 28.06.2007 to 28.07.2007 and considering the statement of the claimant/respondent No.1 and looking to the injuries sustained by him, it would be presumed that he was unable to earn income for 3 months and also expenses on care-taking, transportation and special diet would be required. 13. Now, I shall consider the assessment of compensation made by the Tribunal. The injured/claimant in his claim petition has pleaded that he used to earn Rs.2,000/- p.m. by doing labour works. The Tribunal, considering the 7 pleading of claimant, has assessed the income of the injured/claimant at Rs.2,000/- p.m. and Rs.24,000/- per annum, which in my opinion is just and proper. After that, the Tribunal, considering the medical evidence, in particular, para 8 of cross-examination of Dr. L.L.Thakur, assessed the permanent disability to the extent of 12%. Thereafter, the Tribunal applied multiplier of 18 as at the time of accident, the injured/claimant was 20 years old and and if multiplier, as taken by the Tribunal, in terms of the permanent disability to the extent of 12% is taken into consideration, the compensation payable to the claimant is worked out to Rs.51,840/- (2,000 x 12 x 18 x 12/100) towards compensation amount in terms of permanent disability. The approach of the Tribunal in assessing the monthly income of injured/claimant, in applying the correct multiplier and in working out the amount towards permanent disability is just and reasonable. However, the amount of Rs.2,000/- towards treatment, Rs.4,000/- towards pain and suffering and mental agony and Rs.3,000/- towards special diet, transportation awarded by the Tribunal on its own, are on lower side and needs to be modified. 14. Considering the nature and number of injuries including permanent disability to the extent of 12% in the claimant’s body, his hospitalisation and also looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice would be served if the claimant/respondent No.1 is further awarded a sum of Rs.6,000/- towards loss of income for three months, Rs.15,000/- for special diet, transportation, care-taking and Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and pain & sufferings. Accordingly, it is held that the claimant/respondent No.1 is entitled to get an additional sum of Rs.46,000/- under such heads. 15. Since the Tribunal has already awarded a total compensation of Rs.60,840/-, therefore, after adding Rs.46,000/- to the amount of compensation of Rs.60,840/-, the claimant/respondent is held entitled to get a 8 total sum of Rs.1,06,840/- along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of claim petition till its realisation. The enhanced amount of Rs.46,000/- along with interest as awarded by Tribunal shall be paid by the appellant/insurance company. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated herein above and rest of the conditions shall remain in tact. 16. In view of above, the appeal filed by the insurance company, being without any substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed and Cross- appeal filed by the claimant/respondent No.1 is hereby allowed in part. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani