1 2025:CGHC:13899 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1691 of 2019 1 - Satyendra Singh Thakur S/o Narendra Singh Thakur Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Jorapara, Sarkanda, Tahsil & District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1 - Dharmendra Vishvakarma S/o Krishna Kumar Vishvakarma Aged About 22 Years R/o Shyam Nagar, Lingiyadeeh, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Vehicle Auto No. C.G. 10-U-5235)., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh] 2 - Ishwar Vishvakarma S/o Mangala Vishvakarma Aged About 34 Years R/o Shyam Nagar, Lingiyadeeh, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Vehicle No. C.G. 10-U-5235)., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager Chola Mandalam General Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Vyapar Vihar, Shop No. 01/12, Jone-01, Near Renault Show Room, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Vehicle Auto No. C.G. 10-U.-5235)., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) 2 And MAC No. 1575 of 2019 1 - Branch Manager, Cholamandlam General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Vyapar Vihar Shop No. 1/12 Zone 1 Near Renault Showroom Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Through Branch Manager Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Hinduja Complex 1st Floor No. 22 Near Railway Line Devendra Nagar Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 1 - Satyendra Singh Thakur S/o Narendra Singh Thakur Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Jorapara, Sarkanda, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 2 - Dharmendra Vishwkarma S/o Krishna Kumar Vishwkarma Aged About 22 Years R/o Shyam Nagar Lingiyadih Police Station Sarkanda District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 3 - Ishwar Vishwkarma S/o Mangala Vishwkarma Aged About 34 Years R/o Shyam Nagar Lingiyadih, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Owner --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate in MAC No. 1691 of 2019 and Ms. Shrishti Upadhyay on behalf of Mr. D.L. Dewangan, Advocate in MAC No. 1575 of 2019 For Respondent(s) : Ms. Shrishti Upadhyay on behalf of Mr. D.L. 3 Dewangan, Advocate in MAC No. 1691 of 2019 and Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate in MAC No. 1575 of 2019 Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 22/03/2025 1. Since both the appeals arise out of the same award, therefore they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appeals i.e. MAC No. 1691 of 2019 and MAC No. 1575 of 2019 have been filed by the appellants against the award dated 04.05.2019 passed by 9th Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 66 of 2018 whereby the claimant has been awarded a compensation of Rs. 14,77,704/- with interest @ 8% per annum fastening liability upon the insurance company/non-applicant No.3. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case, in both the appeals, are that the claimant filed a claim application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1983 for injury sustained to him in road accident. As per the case of the claimant, on 13/11/2017 at about 9:30 P.M., claimant was going to Jorapara on his motorcycle, when he reached near Nutan Chowk, Sarkanda, at that time, driver of the auto bearing Registration No. CG- 10 U/5235 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle from the back side. As a result of which, claimant sustained grievous injury in his left leg thereafter, he was shifted to Gayatri Hospital for primary treatment. On examination, it was found that he got a fracture in Tibia Fibula of his left leg and for which, he underwent a surgery and a rod was inserted in his leg. The claimant was imparted treatment from 14/11/2017 to 26/11/2017, due to the 4 injury sustained in the accident, the claimant has suffered permanent disability and is not able to perform the work which he did prior to the accident. As per the contention of the claimant, he was working as a medical representative in Vital Care Private Limited and used to earn a sum of Rs. 12,417/- as salary and from other source of income, he earns about Rs. 18,000-19,000/- per month but due to disability suffered, he is not able to perform the work. Therefore, total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 35,50,000/- has been claimed under various heads. 4. Non-Applicant No. 1 & 2 i.e, driver and owner respectively filed their written statements denying all the adverse averments made against them and specifically pleaded that Auto bearing Registration No. CG- 10 U/5235 was not involved in the accident and the said vehicle has falsely been implicated. It was also pleaded that on the date of accident, the vehicle was insured with the insurance company/non- applicant No.3, therefore, if any liability arises, the insurance company/non-applicant No.3 is liable to reimburse the same. 5. Insurance Company/ non-applicant No.3 filed its written statement denying all the adverse averments made against it. It was specifically pleaded that the vehicle bearing Registration No. CG-10U/5235 was registered and insured as a commercial vehicle in the name of Non- Applicant No. 2 as per the terms and conditions of the policy but on the date of accident, the vehicle was plied without having valid permit and fitness certificate which is violation of terms and conditions of the policy, therefore the non-applicant No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. It was also pleaded that on the date of the accident, the driver did not posses a valid and effective Driving 5 License, therefore, the insurance Company/ non-applicant No.3 is not liable to reimburse the Claimant. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, awarded a sum of Rs. 14,77,704/- in favour of the claimant. Hence, this appeal. 7. In MAC No. 1691 of 2019- Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is not just and proper, hence, it should be enhanced. The learned Tribunal should not have reduced the salary and deducted salary with emolument which was Rs. 18,000/- to 19,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal should have taken into consideration this aspect that he is not working with the same institute where he had been working prior to incident. The defence taken by the insurance company that the claimant is earning Rs. 300/- per day by sitting in his father’s shop, the said earning is not his income it is his father's income. The learned Tribunal ought to have specifically granted a lump sum amount for future treatment. The learned Tribunal ought to have also granted a proper amount under head of pain and suffering, diet, travelling and attendant to the appellant. The learned Tribunal ought to have also granted 12% interest to the appellant. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed and the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal may be enhanced. 8. In MAC No. 1575 of 2019- Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal was not justified in fastening the liability on the insurance company. The learned Tribunal has committed grave illegality in holding that claimant is suffering 40% permanent disability which causes loss of earning capacity of 40% without considering the functional disability because disability suffered by the claimant is only 6 in respect of particular limb not for whole body. Learned Tribunal has failed to consider that while assessing the compensation in injury case, loss of earning capacity and functional disability are relevant consideration in the instant case claimant have not established that due to the disability suffered in road accident, he is not able to perform the work. The learned Tribunal has failed to consider that as per the case of the claimant himself after the accident, he is doing other work therefore finding recorded by the Tribunal that claimant is suffering 40% permanent disability and considering loss of income @ 40% is perverse. Learned Tribunal has committed grave illegality in taking Rs.4966/- as loss of income i.e. 40% of his salary Rs. 12,417/- because as per the statement of the claimant, he is earning Rs. 300/- per day after the accident from alternate job therefore at the best he is deprived of Rs. 3417/- per month and learned Tribunal ought to have taken 40% of Rs. 3417/- per month. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is much higher side and bonanza for the claimant, which is contrary to object of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Tribunal has committed grave error in taking 40% future prospects in injury case relaying the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court NIC Vs Pranay Sethi because law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicable in present case. Therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 9. Per contra, in both the appeals, learned counsel for the respondents oppose the contention made by learned counsel for the appellants. 10. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. As regards appeal i.e. MAC No. 1575/2019, the learned Tribunal 7 framed four issues and out of which, the important issue is as under:- ्ቅ. वाद ्ቚश्न निनष्क्ቧ 1. क्या, अनवादक ्ቅाሰक 1 एवा 2 क ቛኋरा बीाሰ पॉलिसी क शኘ᭖! क उቤ቏घन निकया गया ? "अ्ቚाሰनि&ኘ᭖ ।" 12. Before the learned Tribunal, the insurance company/appellant (herein) in MAC No. 1575/2019 objected that the driver of Auto bearing Registration No. CG 10 U 5235 was not possessed a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident, however, the learned Tribunal minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly held that the insurance company did not file any oral or documentary evidence in this regard and thus, insurance company has failed to prove this fact that owner and driver of the said vehicle have committed any breach of insurance policy. 13. 13. Before this Court also, the appellant/insurance company only objected that driver and owner committed breach of insurance policy but insurance company did not file any document in support of the said objection which proves that on the date of accident, driver of vehicle did not possess any valid and effective driving licence and it is clear from copy of seizure memo (Ex.P/2) that the police seized driving licence of auto driver in criminal case but the said driving licence was found to be forged one. Hence, the objection raised by the insurance company/appellant, has no merit and is liable to be rejected. 14. Learned Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of non-applicant No.1- Dharmendra Vishwakarma (Driver of Auto bearing Registration No. CG-10U/5235) and claimant/applicant got injured and he suffered 40% disability. Claimant 8 filed his permanent disability certificate vide Ex.P/45. The learned Tribunal after considering the age of the claimant and medical documents, has rightly awarded the amount towards loss of income due to disability, loss of income due to treatment, medical expenses and conveyance. Learned Tribunal was justified in not awarding any amount towards future treatment as no evidence oral and documentary was adduced by the claimant to substantiate the said fact. However, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the period of his hospitalization i.e. from 14/11/2017 to 26/11/2017, the medical documents including the receipts filed by the claimant, the fact that the claimant suffered fracture and his leg was operated, this Court is of the opinion that the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering, special diet and attendant is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances of the case and evidence available on record, the claimant is held entitle for compensation in the following manner:- S.No. Particular Awarded by the Tribunal Awarded by this Court 1. Loss of income due to disability 12,75,000/- 12,75,000/- 2. For loss of income during treatment 49,668/- 49,668/- 3. Medical Expenses 83036/- 83036/- 4. Medical Expenses for future treatment Nil Nil 5. For Pain and Suffering 30,000/- 1,00,000/- 6. For Convyance 10,000/- 10,000/- 7. For Special diet 20,000/- 25,000/- 8. For Attendant expenses 10,000/- 20,000/- 9 Total 14,77,704/- 15,62,704/- 15. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the claimant/appellant is held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.15,62,704/-. Since, the Claims Tribunal has already awarded Rs.14,77,704/-, after deducting the said amount, the claimant/appellant is entitled for enhanced amount of Rs.85,000/-. This additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till realization. 16. In the result, the appeal i.e. MAC No. 1691 of 2019 is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. The Appeal i.e. MAC No. 1575 of 2019 being without any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV