1 2025:CGHC:34342 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1423 of 2019 Somendra Bisen S/o Dinkrishna Bisen Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Singhola, Post- Miriya (Karanja), Tahsil Lanji, District Balaghat Madhya Pradesh., District : Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Kalidas Sharma S/o Late Mulchand Sharma Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Musra Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - Tata A I G General Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager, Lalganga Shopping Mall, G E Road, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : None present, though served. Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 18/07/2025 1. This is claimant’s appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of 2 compensation awarded by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (CG) vide impugned award dated 30th January, 2019 passed in Claim Case No.113/2015. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that, on 01.12.2013, appellant/claimant was going alongwith his wife Shalini Bisen on his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 06 / 6897 from Raipur to his home in village Singhola, Tehsil Lanji, District Balaghat (M.P.) via Rajnandgoan. On the way, ahead of village Litiya Road Aaramachine, driver of Maruti Suzuki Omni bearing registration No. C.G. 08/6444 coming from the front side driving rashly & negligently, dashed the motorcycle driven by appellant, as a result thereof, he fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries in his left leg & his wife Shalini Bisen also suffered injuries in her waist, etc. In the said accident, motorcycle of the appellant was also damaged. Thereafter, appellant and his wife were admitted to the District Hospital, Rajnandgaon by the Police. After first aid, the applicant was referred to Gondia (M.H.) for further treatment, where the appellant remained hospitalized in Gondia City Hospital from 02.11.2013 to 16.11.2013, where left leg of the appellant was operated and broken parts of the bone were joined with a rod. The appellant remained bedridden for two months after the said accident. 3. The applicant/claimant filed application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 pleading there in that on the date of accident, the applicant was aged about 44 years, was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month by working as electrician. In the said motor accident, claimant sustained multiple severe injuries resulting into permanent disability and he has become unable to do his work as before. 3 4. Respondent No. 1 / driver of the offending vehicle filed their written statement denying the facts mentioned in the application pleading inter alia that claimant himself was driving his motorcycle fast & negligently dashed with offending vehicle and sustained minor scratches. It is further pleaded that appellant/claimant and his wife did not suffer any grievous injuries and the accident occurred due the claimant's own negligence. It is pleaded that at the time of accident, Maruti Suzuki Omni van was insured with respondent No. 2/Insurance Company and the respondent No. 1 was having valid & effective driving licence issued by RTO, Rajnandgaon, therefore, if there is any liability to pay compensation to the claimant, Insurance Company be held liable for payment of compensation. 5. Respondent No. 2 / Insurance Company filed its written statement denying substantive pleading made in the claim petition pleading inter alia that offending vehicle - Maruti Suzuki Omni bearing registration No. C.G. 08/6444 is not insured with the Insurance Company, as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant. It is averred that Insurance Company issued Cover Note No. 678015 to the agent of Insurance Company namely, Bharti Devi, which was lost, it was reported by said Bharti Devi in Civil Line Police Station, Raipur. Thus, the Insurance Cover Note of the offending vehicle involved in the alleged accident has been used fraudulently. Therefore, respondent No. 3/Insurance Company may be exonerated from its liability to pay compensation to the claimant. 6. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence held : the accident occurred due to collision between Maruti Suzuki Omni bearing registration No. CG 08/6444 being driven by respondent No. 1/Kalidas 4 Sharma and motorcycle bearing registration No.CG 06/6897 being driven by appellant/claimant; both equally contributed to the accident; Somendra Bisen sustained multiple injuries in the said accident; was exonerated respondent No. 2/Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation to the claimant, fastening liability of payment of compensation upon respondent No. 1/owner of the offending vehicle; assessed the amount of compensation as Rs.1,24,535/-. After deducting 50 percent of it towards contributory negligence of the claimant, awarded a sum of Rs. 62,268/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition, till its actual payment, as compensation to the claimants. 7. Learned counsel appearing for appellant/claimant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in deducting 50 percent of awarded amount, towards contributory negligence on the part of claimant and thereby awarding low amount of compensation of Rs. 62,268/- only. He further submits that the Claims Tribunal erred in law in exonerating the respondent No. 2 / Insurance Company by recording a finding that Cover Note produced by respondent No. 1 is not issued by Insurance Company and the Insurance Company has lodged report regarding missing of Cover Note Book No. 678015. He further submits that Claims Tribunal awarded meager compensation towards grievous injuries sustained by claimant in the said accident, pain & Suffering, special diet, which deserves to be enhanced suitably. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2/Insurance Company opposes the submission made by the counsel for the appellant and would submit that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal and the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims 5 Tribunal is just and proper in the facts of the case, which does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the claim Tribunal. 10. The fact that the accident in question is outcome of contributory negligence of appellant –Somendra Bisen and respondent No. 1/Kalidas Sharma and that the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company exonerated from its liability to pay compensation to the claimant, saddling liability of payment of compensation upon respondent No. 2/Insurance Company, are now not in dispute. 11.Though, appellant has claimed himself to be an electrician, but in absence of supportive document in this regard, it cannot be presumed that he was not an Electrician. The claimant is 46 years old. He can do normal work of Electrician despite the injury in his left leg. The applicant sustained grievous injuries in the said accident, therefore , it can be assumed that the appellant will be unable to do the work for two months. Thus, the claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 30,000/- for loss of income for two months. 12. Learned Claims Tribunal further awarded Rs. 79,534/- towards the medical expenses; Rs.10,000/- towards pain & suffering, special diet & mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards travelling expenses, thus, has awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,24,535/- to claimant. After deducting 50 percent of it towards contributory negligence of the appellant, awarded Rs. 62,268/- as compensation. 13. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 79,534/- towards the medical expenses. Learned counsel for the appellant could not be able to point out that the said amount as awarded by the learned Claims 6 Tribunal towards medical expenses is erroneous in any way. Hence, the finding of the learned Claims Tribunal against the award of medical expenses does not call for any interference and is hereby, affirmed. 14. Further, in the facts & circumstances of the case, I find it appropriate to award Rs. 20,000/- to claimant towards grievous injuries sustained by him in the accident, Rs. 20,000/- toward pain and suffering, Rs. 10,000/- towards special diet, Rs. 5,000/-towards conveyance, Rs. 10,000/- towards attendant and his expenses, Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment. 15. For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:- Sr. No. Head Awarded by Claims Tribunal Awarded by this Court. 1. For Medical Expenses Rs.79,534/- Rs.79,534/- 2. For grievous injuries sustained by claimant ------ Rs.20,000/- 3. For Special diet Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- 4. For Pain & suffering ----- Rs.20,000/- 5. Loss of income for two months Rs.30,000/- Rs.30,000/- 6 . Towards attendant and his expenses --------------- Rs. 10,000/- 7. For conveyance Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- 8. Total Compensation Rs 1,24, 534/- Rs. 174,534/- 9. Deducted 50% towards Rs. 62,267/- Rs. 87,267/- 7 contributory negligence Total Rs. 62,267/- Rs. 87,267/- 16. This enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 17. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellant as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above. 18. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. 19. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge amita AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.08.06 17:12:44 +0530