1 2025:CGHC:17175 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1026 of 2018 1 - Cholamandlam General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Simran Tower Lic Building Pandri Raipur, Through Deputy Manager (Legal), Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company, Opposite Life Insurance Corporation Pandri, P.S. Pandri District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) --- Appellant versus 1 - Kantu Sahu S/o Late Jivrakhan Sahu, Aged About 37 Years R/o Village - Chhati Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 2 - Devlal Sahu S/o Mahettar Ram Sahu Aged About 47 Years Village - Chhati, Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Driver And Owner) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 15/04/2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the impugned award dated 12.02.2018, passed in Claim Case No.60/2016, whereby the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, District – Dhamtari (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) has allowed the claim application filed by claimant/respondent No.1 and awarded total compensation of BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.04.24 10:28:47 +0530 2 Rs.3,42,990/- on account of the injuries suffered by him in the road accident. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 01.12.2015, while the appellant was walking towards Village Senchuwa, respondent No. 2, by driving a tractor bearing registration No. CG-05-G-7848 in a rash and negligent manner, hit the applicant/claimant from behind. As a result, the applicant/claimant suffered fracture to his left hand and left waist, along with injuries to other parts of his body. He was immediately taken to Masihi Hospital, Dhamtari where he was admitted from 01.12.2015 to 04.12.2015 and thereafter, looking to his serious condition, he was admitted in Shri Narayana Hospital, Raipur from 05.12.2015 to 02.01.2016, where his hand and waist were operated and rod was implanted. 3. Respondent No.1/claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- pleading therein that at the time of accident, he was of 37 years healthy young man and doing the work of labour, earning Rs.400/- per day. Because of accidental injuries, he suffered permanent disability and unable to do his even daily routine work. It was pleaded that accident was result of rash and negligent driving of non-applicant No.1. Claimant had also sought compensation under all other heads as are available to him like medical expenses, special diet, future medical expenses, pain and sufferings etc. 4. Non-applicant No.1 submitted reply and resisted the claim. It was pleaded that the application was filed on false ground exaggerating the amount of compensation. It was also pleaded that on the date of 3 incident non-applicant No.1 was having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. The vehicle was duly insured with non- applicant No.2 and there was no breach of policy condition. It was pleaded that in case, applicant/claimant is entitled for compensation, then respondent No.2 will be liable to pay the compensation. 5. Non-applicant No.2/insurance company, while denying the allegations made in the application pleaded that the accident was not a result of rash and negligent driving of non-applicant No.1. The claim application was filed exaggerating the amount of compensation. At the time of accident, non-applicant No.1 was not having any effective and valid driving license. There was breach of policy condition and hence, the non-applicant No.2 is not liable to indemnify the insured. 6. 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 applicant/claimant suffered grievous injuries. Breach of Policy condition was not found to be proved. Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.3,42,990/- along with interest @ 6% per annum, fastened liability upon non-applicant No.2-Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation. 7. Learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company submits that the appellant has preferred this appeal on two grounds. Firstly that the learned Claims Tribunal has not granted proper opportunity to the appellant/non-applicant No.2 to lead evidence in their support and further that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded sum of 4 Rs.1,25,490/- apart from Ex.P-20 which is final bill without making any discussion with respect to the cash memo/receipt marked and exhibited by the applicant/claimant in support of his case. He also submits that most important ground is that offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the accident. In support of submission he submits that the claimant in support of his claim has submitted medical documents including the medical prescription of Narayana Hospital in which cause of accident is mentioned as due to falling from Thresher machine, which is not insured by the appellant/Insurance Company, however, in the FIR which was lodged after about one month from the date of incident, it is mentioned that respondent No.1/claimant was dashed by tractor bearing registration No.C.G.-05-G-7848 owned and driven by respondent No.2. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant would submit that there is no merit in this appeal. So far as the submission of learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company with respect to the award of amount of Rs.1,25,490/-, which is already computed and added in the final bill, hence, the award of said compensation is sustainable, she submits that Ex.P-20 is the final bill with respect to the bed charges, room charges, consultancy fees etc. except the bills towards the purchase of medicine. Claimant has submitted bills towards the purchase of medicines apart from Ex.P-20 (final bill of Shri Narayana Hospital). Bill towards purchase of medicine is not included in the Ex.P-20, hence, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant is contrary to the material available in record. She next contended that the submission of learned counsel for the appellant based on the Ex.P-7 is 5 also not sustainable. She submits that from the material and the evidence available on record would show that after accident, it is the owner of the tractor who took the applicant/injured to Christian Hospital, Dhamtari and had narrated the story about the manner in which the accident took place and the applicant suffered injuries over his person. Applicant remained admitted for treatment in Christian Hospital for about 4 days and thereafter, he was taken to Shri Narayana Hospital, Raipur looking to the seriousness of the injuries. In the document Ex.P-7, the facts which is mentioned in the documents of the Christian Hospital is only extracted. Appellant has not lead any evidence in support of the grounds raised in this appeal before the learned Claims Tribunal nor had cross-examined the witness on this issue/point. The said ground raised by learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted at appellate stage. She also submits that from the records, it is appearing that appellant/Insurance Company was provided proper opportunity of hearing, however, the appellant failed to produce the witness before the Court or recording his evidence. She also pointed out that application submitted for adjournment on the ground that the witness is not available is very vague. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also adopted the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.1 and would submit that the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper, which does not call for any interference. 10. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 6 11. So far as the submission of learned counsel for appellant with respect to the non-grant of proper opportunity of hearing is concerned, perusal of the record would show that after closing the evidence of appellant and respondent No.1, learned learned Claims Tribunal has fixed the case for recording of the evidence of the witness of non-applicant No.2/appellant. Perusal of the order-sheet would show that on 26.10.2017, evidence of the applicant/respondent No.1 was recorded. He closed his right to lead evidence. Thereafter, the case was fixed for recording of evidence of the non-applicant No.1 on 14.11.2017 and on that day, evidence of the non-applicant No.1 was recorded. Thereafter, on the next date it was fixed for recording of evidence of non-applicant No.2/appellant on 08.12.2017 and thereafter, the case was fixed for recording of evidence on 12.01.2018, 22.01.2018 and 29.01.2018. On 07.02.2018, application seeking adjournment filed by the appellant/non-applicant No.2 to produce witness in support of their defence came to be dismissed and the case was fixed for final arguments. Perusal of the application dated 07.02.2018 would show that no specific name is mentioned in the application of the witnesses, who was to be examined by appellant/non-applicant No.2. It is also not mentioned that as to why the witness could not appear on the date fixed for recording of the evidence. The pleadings made in the application appears to be vague, hence, in absence of the non- pleading the specific facts, name of the witness or the reasons of non- appearance of the said witness before the Claims Tribunal on the date fixed for recording of the evidence, I do not find any error in the decision of the learned Claims Tribunal rejecting the application filed under Order 17 Rule 1 of C.P.C. and closing the right to lead evidence. 7 12. One more important aspects of the case is that the grounds raised by learned counsel for appellant before this Court of not granting proper opportunity of hearing and to bring evidence on record to prove that the vehicle insured by it has been falsely implicated in this accident. The submission of learned counsel for appellant is that accident took place with the thresher and not with the tractor. Perusal of the evidence of (AW-1) would show that no specific question in this regard has been put by the appellant in the cross-examination to the claimant, who was examined as AW-1. Hence, in the aforementioned facts of the case, as discussed above, submission of learned counsel for appellant that no proper opportunity of hearing has been granted to the appellant to prove that tractor was not involved in the accident, is not acceptable. 13. True it is that in Ex.P-7 there is mention that the claimant/respondent No.1 suffered injuries by falling from the thresher, however, fact which is available on record that after accident, it is the owner of the tractor, who took the injured to the hospital i.e. Christian Hospital, Dhamtari and at the time of admission of the respondent No.1/claimant in the hospital, it is the owner of the tractor who narrated the fact of accident and it is accordingly recorded. After taking treatment for about four days in Christian Hospital, respondent No.1/claimant was referred to the higher center i.e. Shri Narayana Hospital for further treatment looking to the grievousness of the injuries. It appears that based on the medical document of the Christian Hospital, Dhamtari forwarded along with the patient was taken note of by the Shri Narayana Hospital, Raipur and accordingly recorded same in Ex.P-7. Medical 8 prescription of Christian Hospital, Dhamtari is not available on record nor A.W.-01 who is injured has been confronted with the document Ex.P-7 so as to prove that in the FIR wrong fact has been pleaded with respect to the nature and the manner in which the accident took place. In the aforementioned facts of the case, submission of learned counsel for appellant that appellant was not provided proper opportunity of hearing for producing the witness is not sustainable and accordingly it is repelled. 14. So far as the last grounds raised by learned counsel for appellant with respect to the additional amount of Rs.1,25,490/- without mentioning the exhibits of the bills of that amount is concerned, perusal of the record would show that Ex.P-20 is the final bill issued by Shri Narayana Hospital. In the bill there is no mention of the amount of the bills with regard to the purchase of medicine. Ex.P-20 only mentions about room rent, nursing charges, consultancy charges dressing charges etc. The applicant/claimant has also placed on record the cash memo with respect to the purchase of the medicines and other medical equipments required for his treatment, hence, applicant/claimant is entitled for the amount which he expended for purchase of medicine towards his treatment. Learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company could not able to point out that the amount as calculated and awarded Rs.1,25,490/- is excessive or more than the amount of the cash memo or the bills placed on record with respect to purchase of medicine and others. 9 15. For the foregoing discussions I do not find any merit in this appeal and accordingly the appeal being sans merit is liable to be and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram