1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1695 of 2017 Judgment Reserved on: 7.11.2025 Judgment Delivered on: 15.1.2026 1 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Address Above R.B.Traders, First Floor, Stadium Road, T.P.Nagar Korba, Tehsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Budhwaru Chaukse Alias Budhwaru Ram Chaukse (Dead ) Through Lrs., As Per Court Order Dt. 20-02-2020., Chhattisgarh. 1.1 - Photo Bai Wd/o Budhwaru Chaukse, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Dadarkala, Police Station And Tahsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh. 1.2 - Santosh Kumar Chaukse S/o Budhwaru Chaukse, Aged About 40 Years R/o Ganpati Nagar, Changora Bhata, Sundar Nagar, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 1.3 - Geeta Bai Ratre W/o Ramprakash Ratre, Aged About 30 Years D/o Budhwaru Chaukse, R/o Village Akharapali, Post Kudurmal, Police RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Station Urga, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Devkumar Raj S/o Charan Singh Gond, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Chakabuda, Thana Bankimongra, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh .............Driver Of Offending Vehicle, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Mahilal Yadav S/o Chhahura Lal Yadav, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Sirki, Dipka, Thana Dipka, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ..............Owner Of Offending Vehicle, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Dhanesh Kumar Khunte S/o Fulchand Satnami, Aged About 30 Years R/o Dadarkala, Thana And Tahsil Kartala, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ..............Driver Of Motor Cycle, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Judgment 1. This is the Insurer’s appeal against the award dated 15.5.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 105/2015 whereby an amount of Rs. 5,61,400/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants. 3 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 07.06.2012, the injured claimant was travelling as a pillion rider on motorcycle No. CG-12- AA-8155, which was being driven in a proper manner by respondent No. 4, Dhanesh Kumar, when suddenly another vehicle, namely a Bolero bearing registration No. CG-12-Y-0694, driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No. 2, Devkumar, came from the opposite direction and forcefully dashed the said motorcycle, as a result of which the claimant Budhwaru sustained grievous injuries; that the claimant, who was about 52 years of age at the time of the accident and was engaged in agriculture as his primary source of livelihood, was assessed by the Tribunal in paragraph 12 of the award to have a monthly income of Rs. 4,500/-; that in paragraph 8 of the award, the Tribunal, solely on the basis of Exhibit P-9, held that the claimant had suffered 64.5% permanent disability as certified by Dr. P. P. Singh, although the said doctor was not examined before the Tribunal to prove the disability certificate, and in view of the settled legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the examination and testimony of the doctor issuing such a certificate is mandatory for its evidentiary value; that the Tribunal, therefore, committed a serious error in placing reliance on Exhibit P-9 and consequently awarded compensation on an erroneous basis, leading to an excessive and unjustified determination of compensation; that the application filed under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was duly allowed on 27.08.2016, thereby 4 permitting the insurer to take all defences available to the owner and driver; and that, despite the burden of proof resting upon him, the claimant failed to examine any independent witness to substantiate the manner of the accident or to prove his claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which further renders the award unsustainable. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has committed a manifest error of law and fact in awarding compensation by relying upon the medical certificate (Ex. P-9) without its due and proper proof, inasmuch as neither the author of the said certificate nor the treating doctor was examined before the Tribunal, which is clearly contrary to the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is contended that although Dr. Ghanshyam was examined as a witness, he categorically deposed that Ex. P-9 was issued by Dr. P.P. Sahu, who was never examined, and further admitted that he himself was not the treating doctor and had already resigned from the District Hospital, Korba, thereby rendering his testimony insufficient to prove either the nature of injury or the extent of disability. Learned counsel further submits that the X-ray report only establishes a fracture of the femur, yet the Tribunal has proceeded to award highly excessive compensation. It is urged that no disability certificate issued by a duly constituted Medical Board, as mandatorily required under Rule 220 of the M.P./C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994, was produced, and therefore the 5 finding of permanent disability is wholly unsustainable. Attention is also invited to the plaint, which mentions only a fracture of the right leg, and to para 7 of the award, wherein the finding recorded is of grievous injury and not of permanent disability. The medical witness, Dr. Ghanshyam, in his evidence, clearly stated that the disability mentioned in Ex. P-9 pertains only to the right lower limb and not to the whole body, and that when converted in terms of the Government of India Gazette Notification dated June, 2001, the corresponding whole-body disability would be only 25.8%; however, the learned Tribunal, in para 13 of the award, has erroneously granted compensation on the basis of 60% permanent disability, which is legally untenable, particularly when the disability certificate itself was issued by a doctor who was never examined. He has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy (2005) 12 SCC 189 and Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar, 2020 ACJ 2695, to submit that in the absence of examination of the treating doctor, the injury and disability could not have been held to be proved. Learned counsel further argues that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the offending Bolero vehicle bearing No. CG-12-Y-0694 was a passenger vehicle and was being plied without a valid permit, fitness certificate and driving licence, despite the insurance company having filed an application under Order XI Rule 12 CPC seeking production of these statutory documents, the owner and driver 6 failed to produce the same. It is submitted that as per the registration certificate and the insurance policy, the vehicle was required to possess a valid permit and fitness, and in their absence the appellant insurance company cannot be fastened with liability, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anban (2000) 10 SCC 523. Lastly, it is urged that the Tribunal has further erred in awarding interest at the excessive rate of 8% per annum. On these cumulative grounds, learned counsel submits that the impugned award is unsustainable in law and deserves to be suitably reduced by reassessing the disability in accordance with law, and the appellant insurance company be exonerated from liability in the absence of compliance with mandatory statutory requirements. 4. None for the respondents. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 6. Upon due consideration of the record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant, and there being no appearance on behalf of the respondents, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. The occurrence of the accident, the involvement of the offending Bolero vehicle, and the rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 2 stand duly established from the material on record. The claimant sustained grievous injuries in the said 7 accident and the Claims Tribunal has assessed the compensation on the basis of the evidence available before it. Merely because the author of the disability certificate was not examined, the entire medical evidence cannot be discarded, particularly when the nature of injuries, fracture of the femur, and prolonged treatment are duly supported by medical documents and oral evidence. The Tribunal has considered the functional disability and its impact on the earning capacity of the claimant, who was an agriculturist, and has arrived at a just and reasonable assessment of compensation. The contentions raised with regard to conversion of limb disability into whole-body disability, alleged absence of a Medical Board certificate, and the rate of interest do not disclose any perversity or illegality so as to warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction. Similarly, the plea relating to absence of permit, fitness or driving licence has not been substantiated by cogent evidence so as to absolve the insurer of its liability. 7. The award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is well- reasoned, based on proper appreciation of facts and law, and does not call for any interference. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant/insurance company is liable to be and accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge The date when The date when The date when the judgment is 8 the judgment is reserved the judgment is pronounced uploaded on the website Operative Full 7.11.2025 15.1.2026 - 15.1.2026 Raghu Jat