1 2025:CGHC:24758 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1024 of 2019 Bhagwan Charan Agrawal S/o Shri Satyanarayan Agrawal Aged About 62 Years R/o Sattipara, Nehru, Ward No. Front Of Shankar Mandir, Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant. versus 1 - Ramkumar S/o Shri Tilak Toppo Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Kotaktaal, Thana Patna District Koriya Chhattisgarh (Driver). 2 - Manmohan Sahu S/o Ramprasad Sahu Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Khaanda, Thana Patna, District Koriya Chhattisgarh 3 - Icici Lombard Motor Insurer Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Icici- Lombard House 414, Veer Shawarkar Marg, Siddhi, Vinayak, Prabhawati, Maumbai (M.H.) --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anand Dadariya, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate Respondent No.3 : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 17/06/2025 1. Claimant/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, District – Koriya (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 28.03.2019 passed in Claim Case BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 No.66/2016 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.32,000/- as compensation in an injury case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that applicant/claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming total compensation of Rs.13,23,201/- under different heads on account of the injuries suffered by him in the road accident pleading therein that on 11.4.2016 the applicant was going from Ambikapur to Manendragarh office on his motor cycle Hero Honda No. CG 16 CF- 5242. Respondent No.1, driver of offending vehicle tractor number CG 16 E-0399 and trolley number CG -16 E 0401 while driving the said vehicle rashly and negligently suddenly stopped on the left side of the main road near village Khanda, due to which the applicant collided with the trolley of the tractor and fell down on the main road, applicant suffered serious injuries on his left rib, left shoulder and head. He was taken to the District Hospital Baikunthpur for treatment. Thereafter, looking to his serious condition, he was admitted in Jeevan Jyoti Hospital Ambikapur for better treatment. When the applicant's health did not improve, the he was admitted to Apollo Hospital Bilaspur. Thereafter, the applicant was further treated at Ramkrishna Care Hospital Raipur. It was pleaded in the claim application that at the time of accident, the appellant was aged about 59 years and was working in the office of Rural Engineering Services, Baikunthpur and getting salary of Rs.60,000/- per month and on account of the injuries suffered in the accident, he could not attend the office for about four months and thus suffered loss of income. 3 3. The non-applicants/respondents No1. and 2 filed their reply to the claim application and resisted the claim of claimant. The happening of the accident with the offending tractor was denied and pleaded that false and fabricated report was made involving the offending tractor in the alleged accident. The non-applicant No.3 also refuted the claim allegation and it was pleaded that the motor cycle bearing No.C.G.-15- AB-0113 was being driven in breach of the conditions of the insurance policy. On the date of accident, there was no effective insurance policy of the offending vehicle. The claim application was filed on the false ground in order to get compensation exaggerating the amount of compensation. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal after appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.32,000/-. 5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing contributory negligence on the part of the appellant, driver of the motor cycle also to the extent of 50% without there being any cogent, reliable and admissible piece of evidence. It is contended that the respondent No.1 and 2 have not taken specific plea of contributory negligence on the part of the injured, hence, the learned Claims Tribunal erred in recording a finding that appellant was contributory negligent. The non-applicant No.1 and 2 driver and owner of the offending vehicle have taken a plea that the the offending vehicle itself is not involved in the accident, however, appellant met with an accident with another vehicle i.e. Mini Truck, which during the 4 course of investigation was found to be false and the investigating agency found the involvement of the tractor owned by the non- applicant No.2 and driven by non-applicant No.1. The finding of the learned Claims Tribunal with regard to the contributory negligence is erroneous. Hence, it be set-aside. He next contended that the leaned Claims Tribunal has not awarded the entire medical bills and has awarded meager amount of compensation on other head. Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards the loss of income for the period of treatment. Hence, the amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 6. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 would submit that the respondent No.1 and 2 have also filed cross appeal on the ground that the finding of the learned Claims Tribunal of the involvement of the offending vehicle owned by the respondent No.2 to be erroneous. The non-applicant No.2 to prove the fact of non-involvement of the vehicle has examined himself and one Suresh Kumar Sahu and both of them have stated that the accident was with the Mini Truck and not with the offending vehicle. The amount of compensation awarded under the head of medical expenses by the department is upon verifying the bills and the genuine bills have already been reimbursed to the appellant. The appellant is a government servant, however, he has not produced any documents to prove that he was not being paid the salary during the period of treatment. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused record of the Claims Tribunal. 8. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 2 on cross appeal regarding non-involvement of the offending 5 vehicle is concerned, perusal of the record would show that the accident was reported to the concerned police station and the police after completion of investigation submitted final report showing involvement of the vehicle owned by the non-applicant No.2. The respondent No.2/owner of the offending vehicle is examined as NAW- 1 and in his court’s statement he only stated that the accident was with another vehicle i.e. mini truck however, except that no other admissible piece of evidence has been brought on record. Though there is a statement by the respondent No.2 that against the false implication of his vehicle in the accident, a complaint is made to the higher police officials however, he has not taken any further steps of filing the complaint before the Court of competent jurisdiction. In absence of taking further steps to challenge the act of the investigating agency of involvement of his vehicle falsely and further that except the self serving statement of N.AW.-1 and NAW-2, no other evidence is brought on record. NAW-2 Suresh Kumar has admitted the fact that he along with the brother of the driver of the offending vehicle was working together. He also stated that he has not lodged report to the concerned police station of the accident of the appellant with mini Truck. However, the accidental injuries suffered by the appellant is admitted by both the witnesses. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that the tractor trolley owned by the respondent No.2 is involved in the accident, is based on proper appreciation of evidence and the other material available on record, hence, it does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the cross-appeal filed by the respondent No.1 and 2 is devoid of substance and it is accordingly dismissed. 6 9. So far as the appeal filed by the appellant/claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Claims Tribunal based on the evidence of the appellant as AW-1 has recorded a finding that the appellant received Rs.6,83,000/- as medical reimbursement. The appellant was working as Sub Divisional Officer in Rural engineering Services and therefore, he is entitled for medical reimbursement of the entire medical claim. Learned Claims Tribunal has further recorded that in Ex.P-8, P-34, P- 35, P-37, P-38, P-45 and P-48, the amount mentioned therein bears overwriting and further there is no signature of the officers of the department allegedly have made the overwriting. In view of the above evidence of the appellant, I do not find any error in awarding the amount of compensation towards medical expenses as mentioned therein of Rs.6,83,000/- . The appellant could not able to point out that the appellant is entitled for entire medical claim but reimbursed certain portion of the same. In absence of such a plea, in the opinion of this court, the government department has considered and reimbursed all the bills admissible for reimbursement, hence, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the entire expenditure towards medical expenses has not been reimbursed, is not sustainable and it is repelled. 10. The appellant has not suffered any permanent disability, after getting treatment, appellant got cured and the learned Claims Tribunal considering the period of treatment awarded Rs.6,000/- towards the conveyance expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards special diet, and Rs.8,000/- towards attendant. 7 11. In view of the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the amount of compensation on other head is on lower side, perusal of the record would show that the appellant remained admitted in the hospital from 11.04.2016 till 25.04.2016 and thereafter from 26.05.2016 to 28.05.2016 for his treatment of the motor accidental injuries. The appellant suffered multiple injuries over his person including the multiple ribs fracture with lung contusion (left) with pneumonia right upper lobe, head injury with abdominal injury, fracture left clavicle and scapula. . Copy of the discharge summary, which is also forming part of the record mentions the date of admission 12.04.2016 and date of discharge as 25.04.2016. Diagnosis of poly trauma is mentioned as 1. Head injury with abdominal injury. 2. Multiple rib fracture with lung contusion (left) with pneumonia right upper lobe. 3. Fracture left clavicle and Scapula (inferior angle). During the course of treatment, appellant underwent CT scan and it is reported as under :- “CT Scan Chest (P) 13.04.16 showed multiple rib fractures on left side from 2nd to 9th Associated with mild left plural collection, pneumomediastinum and pulmonary contusion with ICD in situ, mild pleural collection on right side. CT Scan Chest (P) 16.04.16 showed - Multiple rib fractures on left side from 2nd to th Associated with mild left plural collection and pulmonary contusion, Patchy air space opacities in right upper lobe with mild right pleural collection -?infective /?pulmonary edema. CT Scan Abdomen whole showed -Suspicious splenic contusion with mild intraperitoneal collection.” 12. The appellant was further admitted in the hospital on 26.05.2016 and discharged on 28.05.2015. The appellant even if remained admitted in 8 the hospital for about 17 days looking to the nature of injuries, in the opinion of this Court the amount awarded under the head of special diet appears to be on lower side and accordingly, it is enhanced to Rs.20,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/-. 13. The learned Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income as the appellant being a government servant was on leave for the purpose of taking treatment of his motor accidental injuries. Learned counsel for appellant could not able to demonstrate from the record the monthly salary of the appellant, however in the facts of the case looking to the post with which the appellant is working i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer, his income could not be less than Rs.50,000/- per month on the date of accident i.e. 11.04.2016. The medical certificate issued and the discharge ticket available on record would show that appellant was admitted initially for about 15 days and thereafter for 3 days total 18 days. The appellant may not be able to join his service immediately after the discharge from the hospital, therefore, I find it appropriate to hold that the appellant could not able to join his service for period of one month and accordingly he is entitled for Rs.50,000/- towards the loss of income during treatment, because the medical leave if any obtained by the appellant would have been utilized for some other ailment. It is ordered accordingly. The amount awarded towards conveyance expenses of Rs.6,000/- and Rs.8,000/- towards attendant is also just and proper in the facts of the case. Learned Claims Tribunal has already awarded Rs.30,000/- under the head of pain and suffering which in the opinion of this Court is just and proper and it does not call for any interference. 9 14. Learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the contributory negligence of the appellant to the extent of 50% considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the evidence available on record, the time of accident i.e. in the day time at about 10.30 AM, the tractor is not of fast running vehicle further both the vehicles have crossed the place of accident occurred earlier of bus and motor cycle, where as per the evidence available large number of people gathered, the contributory negligence of the appellant could not be ruled out as he dashed the offending tractor trolley from its rear side. Hence, the said finding of the learned claims tribunal of contributory negligence on the part of the appellant is on proper appreciation of the evidence, hence, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the said finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, the said finding is affirmed. 15. On the basis of above, the compensation calculated by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :- SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. For special diet : 20,000.00 2. For conveyance expenses : 6,000.00 3. For attendant : 8,000.00 4. Loss of income during laid down period : 50,000.00 5. For pain and suffering : 30,000.00 Total compensation : 1,14,000.00 16. As this Court has held that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant to the extent of 50%, which is to be deducted from 10 the total amount of compensation. After deducting 50% towards contributory negligence, the amount of compensation payable to the appellant comes to Rs.57,000/-. 17. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellant shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.57,000.00. Any amount paid to the appellant as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. 18. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram