1 2025:CGHC:19519 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1394 of 2018 1. Mo. Akram S/o Vahid Udden Ansari Aged About 42 Years R/o J 404, Rishabh Prime City Colony, Potiya Road, Durg, Police Station City Kotwaly Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh (Claiment). ... Appellant versus 1. Smt. Sunita Badani W/o Ramesh Kumar Badani Aged About 40 Years R/o F 304, Rishabh Prime City Colony, Potiya Road, Durg, Police Station City Kotwaly Durg District- Durg, Chhattisgarh (Driver). 2. Manoj Sharma S/o Bhagwandas Sharma Aged About 45 Years R/o Near Chhattisgarh Jhalak Press, Brahmanpara, Ward No. 33, Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Ground Floor Megnet House, (Opp Ntc House) N.M. Road Balard Estate Mumbai Maharashtra Pin 400001, Through Divisional Office, Parmanand Bhawan, Rajendra Chowk, Malviya Nagar Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant/Claimant : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. N.K. Malaviya, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order on Board SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.05.01 15:47:28 +0530 2 28 / 04 / 2025 1. This appeal arises out of the impugned award dated 08.05.2018 passed by 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District-Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 149/2016 awarding compensation of Rs.50,500/- with interest @ 8% per annum, from the date of application till its realization, in favour of the appellant/claimant. 2. The claim of appellant/claimant before the Tribunal, in brief, was that on 21.02.2016, while appellant/claimant namely Mohammad Akram standing near P. Tower in Rishabh Prime City Colony, Durg with his neighbors, respondent No.1 – Smt. Sunita Badani driving the offending vehicle i.e. Indica Vista bearing registration No. CG-08-1492 rashly and negligently hitting the appellant/claimant, as a result of which, appellant sustained grievous injuries including left hand bone fractured and arm disc has been dislocated. Thereafter, the claimant/appellant was taken to Sector-9 Hospital for treatment. Upon report being made in this regard, crime was registered against respondent no.1 (Driver of the offending vehicle) at Durg Police Station, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3. It was claimed that at the time of accident, the appellant/injured was aged about 42 years and he was working as an Engineer in BSNL. Due to the said accident, the appellant sustained a grievous injury and his left arm disc has been dislocated and bone fractured. Therefore, the claimant/injured preferred an application before the Claims Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs.6,40,370/- for disability, loss in future income, physical and mental agony, medical expenses and also under other heads. 4. Learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents brought on record, held that the injured Mohammad Akram sustained some abrasions and dislocation in the shoulder and he was hospitalized for about 06 days. Notably, there is no certificate indicating permanent disability. Learned Claims Tribunal 3 reviewed the medical bills and accepted some while rejecting others and as per paragraph 17, the award has been passed in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Compensation 1. Towards valid treatment bills submitted by the appellant Rs. 5,354/- 2. Towards injuries, physical and mental suffering Rs. 30,000/- 3. Towards nutritious food, attendant and transport expenses Rs. 15,000/- 4. Total Rs.50,354/- in round off Rs. 50,500/- 5. Learned counsel appearing for appellant/claimant argues that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in rejecting the medical bills of the appellant/injured from Ex-P/20 to Ex.P-63 amounting to Rs.1,09,016/- of Narayan Hospital, Raipur on the ground that there were no documents regarding treatment and doctor’s prescription of Narayan Hospital, whereas in the said documents regarding hospitalization in Narayan Hospital, there ongoing treatment and the final bill have been annexed as an original documents, therefore, these bills should be considered. He further submits that no compensation has been awarded towards future treatment which should also be awarded. Thus, prayed for modification of the impugned award enhancing the compensation suitably and also prays for pay and recover orders as in the absence of driving licence, considering the offending vehicle was driven in breach of policy conditions, exonerated the insurance company to its liability for payment of compensation. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No.1 and 2/driver/owner opposes the submission made by the counsel for appellant and submits that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded to the injured/claimant by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and 4 requires no further enhancement. He further submits that the amount of Rs.60,000/- has already been deposited by the owner. Hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3/insurance company argues that the compensation amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal has already been paid by the driver/owner and there is no such situation that there is any obstacle in the recovery of the compensation amount. Therefore, the argument of the appellant/claimant that an order of pay and recovery should be passed is not acceptable. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record thoroughly. 9. It is clear from the perusal of the record that the learned Claims Tribunal has accepted the medical bills (Ex-P/14 to P/19) amounting to Rs.5,354/- under the head of medical expenses but the bills (Ex-P/20 to P/63) of treatment at Narayan Hospital were not accepted, mentioning the reasons that neither the documents related to hospitalization nor the documents regarding operation is presented and not even the concerned doctor has been examined in this regard. 10.From the examination of the documents (Ex-P/20 to P/63), it is clear from the final bill (Ex-P/28) of Narayan Hospital that the appellant/injured Mohammad Akram was hospitalized from 22.02.2016 to 27.02.2016. Additionally, the documents (Ex-P/20 to P/27) are the doctor’s prescriptions regarding operation-related equipment and necessary medication used in the operation issued by the same hospital and the documents (Ex-P/20 to P/63) are the receipts, medical bills of Narayan Hospital, Raipur. Thus, not only the evidence of hospitalization of the injured but the doctor’s prescriptions and other documents are also available. In this situation, the bill amount stated as Rs.1,09,016 (from Ex- P/20 to P/63) is deemed admissible and should be accepted. 11.The request has been made on behalf of the appellant/injured for compensation towards future medical expenses. The appellant/injured has been found to have some abrasions and 5 shoulder dislocation. In view of award in item No. 2 & 3 passed in favour of the injured, it is found appropriate to enhance in item No. 1 by granting an additional amount of Rs.1,09,016/-. An additional amount of Rs.5,000 is also granted to the injured for future inconvenience and medical expenses. Thus, the appellant/injured is entitled to get total additional compensation of Rs.1,14,016/- (1,09,016+5,000) in addition to the amount awarded by the claims Tribunal. 12.So far as the issue of pay and recover is concerned, it is clear that the offending vehicle was insured. However, due to the absence of a valid and effective driving license, there was a breach of policy conditions. In such a situation, a “pay and recover” order is deemed appropriate. Therefore, it is directed that the insurance company shall first pay the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant by this Court, after deduction of Rs.60,000/-, which has already been paid by the owner of the offending vehicle and then recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellant/claimant shall be entitled for the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,14,016/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. Accordingly, the impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 14. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimant in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the Claims Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi (Deonagri) language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimant resides. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.