1 2025:CGHC:29596 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 120 of 2019 1 – ICICI Lumbard General Insurance Company Limited, Through : its Legal Manager, Vanijya Bhawan, Ground Floor, Devendra Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1 - Pramod Yadav S/o Firan Lal Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o Ward No. 3, Mata Chowra Mandir Sirgitti, P.S. Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.(Claimant) 2 - Rohit Gupta S/o Vijay Gupta Aged About 28 Years Occupation Betel Shop, R/o Near Sai Mandir, Padavpara, Kargiroad Kota , Post And P.S. Kota, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 3 - Abhishek Tiwari S/o Suryabali Tiwari Aged About 34 Years R/o House No. 20, Ward No. 2, Padavpara, Kargiroad Kota, Post And P.S. Kota, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Owner). --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advcoate along with Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : None present. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 01/07/2025 1. Appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) challenging the impugned award dated 05.10.2018, passed in Claim Case No.58 of 2018, whereby the learned 9th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) has awarded compensation of Rs.23,71,180/- to the claimant in an injury case. BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.15 10:25:16 +0530 2 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that a claim application was filed by the applicant/claimant claiming compensation of Rs.29,00,000/- as against the injury suffered by him in the road accident. It was pleaded that on 16.12. 2016, at about 4:00 PM, the applicant/claimant was returning from Pali to Bilaspur on motorcycle bearing No. CG-10-E/8725, accompanied by his friend Nilesh Yadav. He stopped the motorcycle on the roadside to visit a relative’s house in the village of Belpara (Beltara), the applicant was in the process of dismounting, at the same time other motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-10-NA/9216, coming towards Ratanpur, suddenly came onto the wrong side of the road and collided with the applicant and his friend, causing an accident. As a result, the applicant sustained serious and life-threatening injuries to his right leg, right hip, waist, right hand, elbow, and other parts of his body. He was initially taken to CSC Ratanpur for treatment, but due to the severity of his condition, he was referred to CIMS Bilaspur. Subsequently, he was admitted to Apollo Hospital Bilaspur, where he remained hospitalized until 31st December 2016. Later, he took treatment from Life Care Hospital, where he was admitted from 6th February 2017 to 8th February 2017. It was pleaded at the time of accident, applicant/claimant was 24 years of age was working as labour and earning Rs.7,000/- per month. He suffered 100% disability. 3. Non-applicant No.1 and 2 failed to cause their appearance before the Claims Tribunal, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte. Non- applicant No.3/Insurance Company filed its reply to the claim application and while resisting the claim it was pleaded that the accident was occurred due to self negligence of applicant/claimant himself. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, non-applicant No.1 3 was not having valid and effective driving license and there was breach of conditions of insurance policy. Claim application was filed exaggerating the amount of compensation. 4. Upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, the learned Claims Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non- applicant No.1, due to which appellant suffered grievous injuries. Breach of Policy condition was not found to be proved. Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.23,71,180/- along with interest @ 8% per annum, fastened liability upon non-applicant No.3-Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation. 5. Learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company submits that appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal failed to consider that the FIR of accident was lodged after about 11 months from the date of accident implanting the motor cycle in the accident, whereas, the claimant met with an accident with one truck and not with the motor cycle. He submits that motor cycle driven by the claimant collided with truck is specifically mentioned in discharge summary of Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur, which is filed before the learned Claims Tribunal as document Ex.NAW-3/1. He contended that in view of the aforementioned facts where the claimants accident with truck, the claim filed against the offending motor cycle be dismissed. 6. There is no representation of the respondent No.1 even when the case is taken up for hearing in the third round. 4 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 8. Perusal of the record of claim case would show that claim application was filed and supported by documents of criminal case including FIR. In the FIR date of accident is mentioned as 16.12.2016, whereas, the date of information in the police station is mentioned as 18.11.2017. Claimant has filed discharge summary of Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur as Ex.A-9. In the said discharge summary, date of admission of claimant is mentioned as 17.12.2016 and date of discharge is mentioned as 31.12.2016. Non-applicant/Insurance Company has also submitted discharge summary of Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur as Ex.NAW-3/1, wherein at page No.2 there is mention of history of present illness, which mentions that patient Mr. Pramod Yadav is admitted from emergency with alleged history of RTA (Truck collided with patient’s bike) on 16.12.2016. Upon Perusal of principal diagnosis of patient as forming part of document Ex.NAW-3/1 would show that patient/applicant suffered multiple fracture injuries over his persons including dislocation of right hip with acetabulum fracture, which is extracted below for ready reference :- “- POLYTRAUMA WITH SHOCK (GR-III) - POSTERIOR DISLOCATION OF RIGHT HIP WITH ACETABULUM FRACTURE (POSTERIOR COLUMN). - SEVERE CONTUSION INJURY LEFT KNEE WITH DISTAL NEUROVASCULAR INJURY (DOUBTFUL VIABILITY), THIGH, LEG. - LACERATED WOUND OVER POSTERIOR ASPECT OF RIGHT FOREARM WITH DISTAL NEUROVASCULAR INJURY. 5 - ? FRACTURE RADIAL HEAD RIGHT SIDE.” 9. The document Ex.NAW-3/1 further mentions operative notes, which reads as under :- “- CLOSED REDUCTION OF RIGHT HIP DISLOCATION WAS DONE UNDER GA ON 17.12.16. - FASCIOTOMY LEFT LOWER LIMB (THIGH AND LEG) WAS DONE UNDER GA ON 17.12.16. - ABOVE KNEE AMPUTATION OF LEFT LOWER LIMB DONE UNDER GA ON 19.12.16. - REPAIR OF LACERATED WOUND (RIGHT FOREARM) WAS DONE ON 19.12.16. - ORIF WITH POSTERIOR RECON PLATING FOR RIGHT ACETABULUM FRACTURE (Implant- MATRIX 8 Hole Plate) WAS DONE ON 26.12.2016. - REVISION AMPUTATION OF LEFT THIGH WOUND AND SECONDARY CLOSURE WAS DONE UNDER GA ON 28.12.16.” 10. Perusal of aforementioned operative notes mentions that there was amputation of left lower limb above knee. It further mentions that revision amputation of left thigh wound and secondary closure was done under GA on 28.12.2016. He also suffered head injuries as is reflecting from the contents of the documents Ex.NAW-3/1 under the head of courses in the hospital. 11. Appellant/Insurance Company examined Dr. Gaurishankar Asarti as NAW-3/1. In his evidence, he admitted that there is no mention in document Ex.NAW-3/1 as to who where accompanied with patient at the time of admission. Name of persons is not mentioned as to who narrated the part of contents of Ex.NAW-3/1 that the motor cycle of claimant collided with truck and further admitted that immediately after accident he was not admitted to the hospital. 6 12. Learned Claims Tribunal observing that in view of the evidence of Dr. Gaurishankar Assarti (NAW-3/1) that the contents of document (Ex.NAW-3/1) mentioned that the vehicle motor cycle collided with truck is not substantive piece of evidence and has discarded the same. True it is that there is mention in the document Ex.NAW-3/1 that motor cycle driven by applicant collided with truck, however, in absence of specific evidence brought on record that who gave such information and the name of the said person, it cannot be considered to be the admissible piece of evidence and the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly held that in view of the evidence of Dr. Gaurishankar Assarti (NAW-3/1) it cannot be concluded that the contents of document (Ex.NAW-3/1) which is relied upon by learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company, is substantive evidence. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in arriving at such conclusion. Merely on the unproved facts mentioned in any part of the documents with regard to treatment given of motor accidental injuries suffered by the claimant, the claim for compensation filed by the claimant cannot be rejected, based on the unproved facts. 13. For the forgoing discussions, I find no good ground to interfere with the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. The appeal being sans merit and it is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram