1 / 6 2025:CGHC:41725 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 707 of 2019 • Indrapal S/o Late Balram Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Railway Colony Belbahara Police Station and Tahsil Manendragarh District Korea Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant/ Applicant-Claimant versus 1. Gajadhar Singh S/o Mahasingh Gond Aged About 33 Years R/o Bhagwanpur Post Janakpur Police Station Janakpur Tahsil Bharatpur District Korea Chhattisgarh. (Driver of Vehicle ) 2. Abdul Rashid S/o Abdul Quddus Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 17 Near Masjid Manendragarh Police Station And Tahsil Manendragarh District Korea Chhattisgarh. (Owner of Vehicle ) 3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through Branch Manager Branch Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ---Respondents/ Non-applicants ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Vikas Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mrs. Usha Chandrakar, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Mamta Mahilange, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anshul R. Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 19/08/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 1/2025, application for condonation of delay of 10 days in filing cross objection/ appeal by Respondent No. 3. 2. On due consideration of the pleadings made in the application and the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties, I.A. No. 1/2025 is PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 6 allowed and the delay in filing of cross-appeal by Respondent No. 3 is hereby condoned. 3. Appellant-claimant have filed this appeal under Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”), challenging the award dated 29.01.2019 passed by Learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 61/2017, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part, awarded total sum of ₹ 67,000/- as compensation in motor accidental injury case. 4. This appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of amount of compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Motor accident occurred on 28.05.2014 at about 10:00 am, involvement of vehicle bus bearing number CG10 G 0265 (hereinafter referred to as “offending bus”) owned by non-applicant No. 2, driven by non-applicant No. 1 as well as non-applicant No. 3 being insurer having first liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is not in dispute. 5. In the facts of the case, this Court is not discussing in detail of pleadings made by the claimant in his claim application, reply filed by non-applicants therein and further discussed by the Claims Tribunal in the impugned award, however, only considering the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties confined only with respect to enhancement of compensation. 6. Learned counsel for appellant-claimant would submit that the appellant- claimant/ injured has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of amount of compensation on the ground that the Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding loss of income for a period of 10 months for which he could not able to join 3 / 6 his services due to motor accidental injuries suffered by him on his right leg. He contented that the Claims Tribunal has erroneously awarded compensation towards loss of income during period of treatment for a period of two months only which is erroneous in view of evidence of AW-2 evidence of Station Master, Railway under whom appellant was working. 7. Learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 and 2 would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that the amount of compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal in the facts of the case is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 would also oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that compensation awarded is just and proper hence it does not call for any interference. He however submits that insurance company has also filed cross objection/ appeal challenging direction of Claims Tribunal of pay and recover to Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company. He contended that Claims Tribunal even after recording a finding that on the date of accident offending bus was being plied without there being valid fitness certificate, had issued direction of pay and recover. 9. Learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 and 2 oppose the submission of learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 on cross appeal and would submit that Claims Tribunal justified in issuing direction of pay and recover in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh and another v. Tata AIG General Insurance Company reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 4 / 6 11. So far as the submission of learned counsel for appellant of non awarding of compensation for loss of income of 10 months during period of treatment is concerned, perusal of record would show that claimant filed document of treatment of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Central Hospital, Manendragarh which mentions date of admission on 28.05.2014 and discharged on 30.05.2014. It also mentions the injury suffered by appellant as fracture of tibia fibula bone L/3 right with a blunt fracture charter. Appellant has not submitted any document before this Court to show that he thereafter was again admitted in the hospital for further treatment or he underwent operation for fracture injury over his right leg or nature of injury was of such nature that he has to take rest for a prolonged period. Appellant has made pleading in the application and submission that he is a Government servant, as per his submission he was on medical leave continuously for a period of 10 months. However no certificate has been placed on record issued by the doctor to be produced before the employer or the fitness certificate issued by the doctor so as to join his service. 12. Appellant had submitted a copy of attendance register as Ext.18 and has also examined Station Master, Railway under whom appellant was posted. In his evidence this witness has stated that the treatment of appellant was on railway hospital, he could not worked for about 10 months during the period of treatment. However, there is no document in record to substantiate the said evidence of AW-2 that the appellant was on leave for about 10 months for his treatment. 13. Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence available on record has considered the relief in the claim application for wages/ salary for a period of 10 months, has disbelieved the said pleadings and oral submission of claimant on the ground that the claimant failed to prove the grievousness of injuries by placing x-ray report or any other medical 5 / 6 document and has awarded compensation towards loss of income during treatment for a period of two months which cannot be said to be erroneous in the facts of the case where the claimant could not able to place on record admissible evidence in particular documentary evidence. 14. For the foregoing discussion, ground raised by counsel for appellant in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that claimant is entitled for loss of income for further period of 10 months is repelled. 15. So far as the cross-appeal filed by the insurance company is concerned, Claims Tribunal has considered judgment passed by the Five Judges Bench of by the High Court Kerala in Pareed Pillai vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. passed in MACA No. 2030/2015 wherein it is held that vehicle is plying without fitness certificate is a breach of policy condition and further taken note of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh (supra), wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued direction of pay and recover. The vehicle involved in that case was plying without there being any valid permit. 16. In the aforementioned facts of the case where the insurer of the offending bus during period of accident is not in dispute and the insurance company is exonerated from its liability only on the ground that offending bus was not having effective fitness certificate and Respondent No. 3, being insurer, has been directed to pay the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal and thereafter to recover the same from the driver and owner of the offending bus is in accordance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh (supra) and Shamanna and another v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported in 2018 (9) SCC 650, hence, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned award passed by learned Claims Tribunal. 6 / 6 17. For the foregoing discussion, cross-appeal filed by the insurance company is without any substance, which is liable to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly. 18. Consequently, the appeal filed by the claimant and the cross appeal filed by the insurance company are dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn