1 2025:CGHC:36251 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 524 of 2018 1 - Tarachand Sahu S/o S/o Ram Aasra Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Kosamkhuta, Police Station And Tahsil Aarang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ..........Claimant, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Ishwar Sahu S/o S/o Dau Govind Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Beldar Para, Ward No. 4, Mahasamund, Police Station- And Tahsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Shankar Nagar Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ..............(Driver Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration. C. G. 04/ A- 8758)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Rekhram Sahu S/o S/o Kanhaiya Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Tumgaon Road Chowk, Mahasamund, P. S. And Tahsil Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Shankar Nagar Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ............(Owner Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration C. G. 04/ A- 8758)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Division Manager, The Oriental Insurance Comapny Limited, Madina Building, Katchari Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ............(Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration C. G. 04/ A- 8758)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Gajendra Chelak, Advocate For Resp. No. 3 : Ms. Veethika Choubey, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Mr. T. K. Tiwari, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 25/07/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 06.07.2017 passed by the learned 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District – Raipur Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 12/2011 (“Tarachand Sahu vs. Ishwar Sahu & Others.”) 2. The averment in the claim petition, in brief, is that according to the claimant’s version of events, on the 09.05.2010, the appellant was traveling on a motorcycle bearing registration number CG.04/C.Y. 2334. The motorcycle was being driven by his friend, Satyendra Sahu. They were journeying from the home village of appellant, Kosamkhta, towards Arang. At approximately 11:00 AM, near a nala (small stream or water body) close to the village of Odaka, the truck driven by respondent No. 1 allegedly collided with the motorcycle from the rear side in a rash and negligent manner. This collision caused the appellant to sustain severe injuries, including grievous wounds to the head and chest, injuries to both hands and legs, with one leg suffering a fracture. Following the accident, the appellant was admitted to the District Hospital at Arang. Due to the severity of his injuries, he was subsequently referred to Ayush Hospital and Maternity Home, where he was treated until 13.05.2010. The claimant asserted that the injuries inflicted not only caused physical and mental trauma but also resulted in significant economic loss due to medical expenses and loss of earning capacity. On this basis, the claimant initiated a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, seeking compensation totaling Rs. 16,00,000 through Motor Accident Claim Case No. 12/2011. Upon issuance of notices by the learned claims tribunal, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly filed a reply denying all the averments made by the claimant. They contested the allegations of rash and negligent driving and the extent of injuries claimed. Meanwhile, respondent No. 3, the 3 insurance company, filed a separate reply stating that the driver (respondent No. 1) did not hold a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. Due to this alleged violation of policy terms, and the lack of any reported accident information to the relevant police authorities, the insurance company contended that it was not liable to pay any compensation. They argued that liability should not be fastened upon them due to the breach of insurance conditions by the owner and driver. After considering the evidence presented by the claimant, including the testimonies of witnesses and the medical documents submitted, the learned claims tribunal arrived at its decision. Notably, the tribunal did not assess or determine the monthly income of the claimant, which is an important factor in compensation claims for loss of earnings. Nevertheless, the tribunal awarded compensation under various heads: Rs. 20,000 for pain and suffering, Rs. 5,000 for loss related to treatment, attendant expenses, and special diet, and Rs. 75,606/- under other relevant heads. The total compensation awarded amounted to Rs. 75,606/-. Additionally, the tribunal granted interest at the rate of 7% per annum, starting from the date of filing the claim application. While the tribunal found the owner and driver of the offending vehicle liable to pay compensation, it exonerated the insurance company from any liability. The reasoning of tribunal was based on the contention of insurance company regarding the invalid license of driver and non-compliance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, the insurance company was absolved of the obligation to compensate the claimant, shifting the entire liability onto the owner and driver of the truck. 4 3. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a very meager amount of compensation, which is unjust and inadequate in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the said award is liable to be enhanced. According to the facts and evidence on record, the appellant was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month as a labourer. However, the learned Claims Tribunal has failed to consider and award the income of the claimant, which is contrary to settled principles of law and hence not sustainable. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a very meager amount as compensation towards loss of income without properly considering the nature and gravity of injuries sustained by the claimant and their impact on his future earning capacity. This omission has resulted in a manifestly inadequate award, which is liable to be enhanced. The injury sustained by the appellant is 15% and as such the tribunal ought to have considered the same; however, the tribunal has only considered 5% disability, which is not in accordance with law. Towards pain and suffering, only Rs. 20,000/- is awarded, and in respect of health, diet, and attendant expenses, only Rs. 5,000/- has been awarded. The claimant was initially admitted in District Hospital Arang and subsequently referred to Ayush Hospital and Maternity Home, where he was hospitalized for approximately five days. During this period, the claimant incurred considerable expenditure on treatment and transportation. However, the learned Claims Tribunal failed to award any amount towards transportation expenses and granted only a lump sum amount for attendant expenses and special diet, which is wholly insufficient and requires enhancement. The compensation awarded for medical and treatment expenses by the learned Claims Tribunal is 5 grossly inadequate and does not reflect the actual cost incurred by the claimant. Therefore, the impugned award deserves to be enhanced. The learned Claims Tribunal has failed to award any compensation towards physical and mental agony sustained by the claimant, and the amount awarded for pain and suffering is also disproportionately low. Consequently, the award is liable to be enhanced on this ground as well. The learned Claims Tribunal erroneously awarded interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the application. In light of the legal precedents and the nature of the case, the appellant submits that interest should be awarded at the higher rate of 18% per annum. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to modify and enhance the impugned award dated 06.07.2017 passed by the learned 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim No. 12/2011, titled Tarachand Sahu v. Ishwar Sahu & Others. 4. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation in the present case as the driver of the offending vehicle, respondent No. 1, did not possess a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. This non- possession of a license constitutes a breach of the insurance policy terms and conditions. Further, the insurance company contends that no accident information report was filed with the police authorities as required, amounting to non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements under the insurance policy. In view of these violations, the insurance company rightly disclaimed liability. The Claims Tribunal 6 has correctly exonerated the insurance company from any compensation liability, and the responsibility to compensate the claimant lies solely with the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, the insurance company prays that the impugned award absolving it of liability be upheld and the appeal preferred by the appellant against the insurance company be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the documents annexed along with the record. 6. Upon examination of the record, it is apparent that no disability certificate issued by a competent Medical Board has been produced by the appellant to substantiate the claim of 15% disability. The absence of a formal disability certificate is a significant factor. The Tribunal has thus relied on available medical evidence and injury reports and assessed disability at 5%. 7. Since the appellant has failed to produce any authoritative medical certification confirming 15% disability, and the existing records are not conclusive to warrant enhancement, this Court finds no sufficient reason to interfere with the assessment of Tribunal on this ground. The injury percentage considered by the Tribunal is therefore upheld. 8. Turning to the award towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal granted Rs. 20,000/-. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, grievous wounds to the head, chest, limbs, including a fracture, and the attendant physical and mental agony, the amount awarded appears to be disproportionately low and does not adequately compensate the appellant for the pain and suffering endured. 7 9. In light of these facts and the principle of just and fair compensation, the pain and suffering amount is enhanced by an additional Rs. 30,000/-. Thus, the total compensation towards pain and suffering is increased to Rs. 50,000/-. Towards head of nursing attendant, nutritious food and transporation expenses, the Tribunal awarded a lump sum of Rs. 5,000/-. Considering the hospitalization period of appellant of approximately five days and the expenses likely incurred towards diet, attendant care, and other related necessities, this amount is grossly inadequate. Taking into account the evidence on record and the standard expenses in such cases, the amount towards nursing attendant, nutritious food and transporation expenses is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. In total, therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by Rs. 35,000/- (i.e., Rs. 30,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 5,000/- towards health, diet, and attendant expenses). 10. The decision of Tribunal to disallow enhancement on other heads including loss of income and medical expenses has not been challenged with sufficient evidence in this appeal. Likewise, the interest rate awarded at 7% per annum is not found to be unreasonable. 11. Accordingly, the claimant would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 1,10,606/- in the following manner:- Sr. No. Heads Calculation 1 Towards loss of income Rs. 32,400/- 2 Towards Medical Expenses Rs. 18,206/- 3 Towards Mental and Physical sufferings Rs. 50,000/- 8 4 Towards Attendant, Nutritious Food and Transporation Expenses Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 1,10,600/- 12. In light of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced from from Rs. 75,606/- to Rs. 1,10,60/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of actual payment. The balance amount, if any, already deposited or paid shall be duly adjusted. The impugned award dated 06.07.2017 passed by the learned 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 12/2011 is accordingly modified to the extent stated hereinabove. 13. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE