1 2025:CGHC:31443 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1008 of 2020 1. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through Issue Office 10003 E-8, Rico Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan, District : Jaipur, Rajasthan ... Appellant versus 1. Rajamurgesh Mani S/o K. P. Sanyasi Aged About 42 Years R/o Type 4 D. S Qt. No. 97, Gurudwara Colony, B. I. O. M Kirundal, District Dantewada (CG) Permanent Address Door No. 49, Ward No. 06, Jakkamal Koil Street, P. S. Chinnamanur, P. O. Chinnamanur, District Theni, Tamil Nadu, 2. Badal Kundu S/o Shri Vimal Kundu Aged About 36 Years R/o Shriram Nagar, Ward No. 08, Old Market Bangali Camp, Bacheli, P. O. Bacheli, District Dantewada (CG) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Utsav Mahishwar, Advocate For Respondents : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 8/7/2025 1. Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal challenging the award dated 31.1.2020 passed by the learned 2 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), South Bastar Dantewada (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) for exonerating it from the liability of payment of compensation. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 25.9.2013, claimant along with his relatives was going in a car to Danteshwari Temple, Dantewada for darshan, when they reached near a Crasher Plant located in Village Dhurli, a truck bearing registration mark CG18-ZC-0274, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver (non-applicant No.1), dashed the said car and caused accident. In the said accident, claimant sustained multiple grievous injures which resulted into 60% permanent disability. An application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.44,00,000/- with interest was filed by claimant on the ground that prior to accident, he was in the business of sale-purchase of agriculture produce, earning Rs.15,000/- per month, however, due to permanent disability sustained by him in his right leg, he is unable to do his work which he was doing prior to the accident. 3. Non-applicant No.1, owner-cum-driver, filed his reply denying the averments made in claim application. It was specifically denied that accident occurred due to sudden failure of brakes, exaggerated compensation is claimed by claimant, at the time 3 of accident vehicle was duly insured with non-applicant No.2, vehicle was not plied on road in violation of any of the conditions of insurance policy and therefore, insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation, if any, awarded to claimant. 4. Non-applicant No.2 Insurance Company also filed its reply pleading that driver of offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license, therefore, non-applicant No.2 is not liable to indemnify the insured. 5. The Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of evidence and documents brought on record by respective parties, arrived at a conclusion that accident occurred due to rashness and negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle causing grievous injuries to claimant. On the date of accident the driver of offending was having valid driving license and accordingly, allowed the application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.7,52,631/- together with interest @ 6% p.a. and fastened liability upon non-applicants, jointly and severally, to satisfy the impugned award. 6. Learned counsel for appellant vehemently contended that disability certificate of Ex.A-107(C) submitted by claimant before the Claims Tribunal is not issued by the Medical Board and therefore, the Claims Tribunal ought not to have relied upon the same for coming to the conclusion that claimant 4 suffered permanent disability to the extent of 30%. He next contended that the claimant has already received reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on his treatment from his department and therefore, claimant is not entitled to medical expenses of 4,20,855/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. He further contended that in absence of any documentary proof with respect to income of deceased, the income assessed by the Claims Tribunal is on higher side. The compensation awarded under other heads is also excessive. On the aforementioned grounds, learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company prays that the compensation awarded to claimant be reduced suitably. 7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal. 8. So far as submission of learned counsel for appellant that disability certificate produced by claimant has not been issued by the Medical Board is concerned, the claimant has pleaded in his application that he suffered grievous injuries in a road traffic accident which resulted into permanent disability to the extent of 60%. He has produced the discharge summary as Ex.A-11 according to which, claimant was admitted in hospital on 26.9.2013 and discharged on 7.10.2013. Claimant was diagnosed with fracture acetabular (Rt) hip and on 30.9.2013, he underwent surgery (open reduction and fixation of RT acetabular fracture with two cancelous screws under EA. Claimant has 5 produced disability certificate marked as Ex.A-107C and a glance of the same would reveal that it was issued by Dr. T. Vardharajan of Government Theni Medical College Hospital, Theni on 21.2.2017. In order to prove the disability, claimant has examined doctor as AW-2. This witness has stated in his statement that claimant appeared before him for issuance of disability certificate and upon physical examination of claimant, he found old injury in hip joint, femur tibia joint of right leg of claimant, steel plate was fixed in hip joint and femur bone of claimant due to which he was not free in his movement. In cross-examination this witness had admitted that percentage of disability of claimant has been evaluated as per Cashler Method mentioned in the Indian Disability Evaluation and Assessment. He has further stated that disability certificate is issued on the basis of old medical documents of claimant and after examination of claimant by him. He has also deposed that extent of percentage of disability is in respect of right leg and not of whole body. 9. In case of Muthaiah Sekhar vs. Nesamony TPT. Corporation Ltd. and another, reported in (1988) 7 SCC 39, the High Court doubted the correctness of disability certificate on the ground that the doctor who issued the same has no authority to give such a disability certificate, and in such a situation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after going through the evidence of the doctor who issued disability certificate, has observed thus:- 6 “8. On a fair reading of the evidence, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in doubting the correctness of the disability certificate…..” 10. In case of Jummerath Sayanna vs. Md. Arifuddin and others, reported in MANU/AP/3507/2013 the Claims Tribunal disbelieved the the evidence of injured claimant and the treating doctor regarding sufferance of disability simply on the ground that disability certificate was not issued by the Medical Board or any authorized Board, and in such a situation, the High Court of Andhra Prades in Para-7 has observed as under:- “7…..On the other hand, the factum of disability can be established through a doctor who is medically competent to speak of the concerned disability. So, if a competent doctor appears before a Court of law and explains the nature and extent of disability and the associated problems due to that disability and if his competency is not challenged by the adverse party and when no counter material is produced to establish what the doctor deposed is false, then there is nothing wrong in Court accepting the evidence of such a medical witness". 11.The position which emerges from bare reading of above quoted judgments is that it is not a hard and fast rule that an injured- claimant in order to prove his disability must invariably produce 7 a certificate issued by Medical Board. It is also necessary that such doctor must have treated the injured. What is necessary is that the doctor who has issued the certificate of disability must be examined to prove it. Unless the author of the certificate examined himself ,it was not admissible in evidence. Most importantly, there is no provision in the Act of 1988 and the Rules framed thereunder that a permanent disablement certificate must always be issued by the Board of Doctors. 12. In case at hand, from the disability certificate, Ex.A-117C read with oral testimony of the medical expert (AW-2), who had issued disability certificate (Ex.A-107C), it is clear that claimant suffered fracture of right hip joint and femur-tibia and steel plate was inserted in his hip joint and femur bone and he became 60% disabled in relation to right lower limb. This certificate was issued by a government medical practitioner posted in Government Theni Medical College Hospital, Theni and if, in any manner, the insurer was having any doubt about the authenticity of said certificate or competency of AW-2 to give such a certificate, it was on the insurer to lead evidence to the contrary. However, in the cross examination of AW-2, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of insurance company could not able to controvert the fact that claimant is suffering from 60% locomotor disability or evidence of AW-2 or to prove that disability certificate was fake or that AW-2 is not competent to speak of the disability aspect or he was deposing falsehood to help the 8 patient. Under these circumstances, I find no reason to accept the submission of learned counsel for the appellant the disability certificate, which is duly proved by AW-2, ought not to have been relied upon by the Claims Tribunal, the same is repelled. 13. Coming to second limb of argument of learned counsel for appellant that medical expenses has already been reimbursed by NMDC. To establish this ground the insurance company has examined Shri Ganpat as NAW-2, who was Deputy General Manager in NMDC Limited, Kirandul, Dantewad (CG). This witness has stated that medical bills of treatment of Raja Murugesh (respondent No.1 herein) were paid by the NMDC but afterwards the said amount of medical expenses was recovered from the final dues payable to Late R. Madhavan, an employee of NMDC. In the cross-examination this witness has clarified that Raja Murugesh (respondent No.1 herein) and one M. Mahalaxmi were not employed in their institute and they were though relatives of R. Madhawan, but not dependent on him. He also stated that as R. Madhawan, Raja Murugesh and M. Mahalaxmi sustained injuries in one and the same accident, therefore, as an exceptional case, medical treatment expenses of Raja Murugesh (respondent No.1 herein) and M. Mahalaxmi was borne by NMDC. 14. Thus, from the evidence of NAW-2 that respondent No.1 herein was under the employment of the NMDC and being so, the question of reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by 9 respondent No.1 in his treatment does not arise. Even, insurance Company failed to bring on record any material showing that the medical expenses which have been taken into consideration by the Claims Tribunal were subject of any reimbursement. The Claims Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the entire documentary evidence i.e. medical bills/ prescriptions brought on record by injured claimant and was justified in awarding Rs.4,20,855/- for expenses towards medical treatment. Therefore, the same does not call for any interference by this Court. 15. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant Insurance Company has no substance, the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/- SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI