1 2025:CGHC:31843 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 273 of 2019 • Kripalu Yadav, S/o Rameshwar Yadav, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Keshra, Kamleshwarpur, Police Station Kamleshwarpur, Ambikapur District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle No. W.B./41-D/6986). ... Appellant versus 1. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, S/o B. N. Yadav, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Nagar Balia, District Balia, Uttar Pradesh, Present R/o Rupsa, Khandgaon, Bardwan West Bengal (Owner Of Vehicle No. W.B./41-D/6986). 2. Saira Bano @ Saiyara Bano Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Lamgaon (Khajurpara), Tahsil Lundra, Police Station Batauli, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh (Claimant). 3. The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Patna Regional Through Sada Complex, Transport Nagar, Korba District - Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Akancha Vishwakarma, counsel appears on behalf of Mr. A. N. Pandey, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 10/07/2025 1. This appeal is filed by the driver of the offending vehicle challenging the impugned award dated 10.11.2016 passed by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Ambikapur in Claim Case No.159/2013, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal while awarding Rs.1,15,000/- as compensation in 2 injury case has fastened the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the non-applicants No.1 & 2, i.e., driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.08.2011 at about 11 am, when the complainant saira Bano was going to Village Telaidhar along with her husband Imtiyaj Ansari and children, non applicant No.1 came driving on a truck bearing Registration No.WB-41-D-6986 rashly and negligently from the opposite direction and dashed the motorcycle of the claimant/respondent No.2, as a result of which the claimant sustained severe injuries in her both legs including fracture injury. Treatement of which was got done at Community Health Centre, Sitapur, Holycross Hospital, Ambikapur and Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur, where she was admitted for about 3 months. Subsequently, a claim petition was filed by the claimant before the learned Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.7,80,764/- on the ground that prior to the accident, she was doing the work of sewing knitting and was earning Rs.9000/- per month. The claim application was partly allowed and Rs.1,15,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimant payable by the non applicant Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally, against which the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/non applicant No.1/driver. 3. Counsel for the appellant submits that the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal, that the insurance policy, which is produced in the claim case was fake, is erroneous. He also submits that appellant was working as a driver of the vehicle owned by non-applicant No.2, and even if, it is held that the insurance policy produced was fake, the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation would be only against the owner of the vehicle. 4. Counsel for the respondent No.2 oppose the submission of the counsel for the appellant and would submit that in the facts of the case, where the Claims Tribunal found that on the date of accident the vehicle was being plied without obtaining the insurance policy, learned Claims Tribunal justified in 3 fastening the liability upon the driver and owner of the vehicle to satisfy the amount of compensation. She further submits that she has also filed cross appeal/objection seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for the permanent disability suffered by her. She submits that claimant/respondent No.2 has produced the copy of disability certificate issued by the Medical Board Ambikapur and examined the Doctor (AW-3) to prove the disability certificate. The amount of compensation awarded in the facts of the case is much less than what, the claimant is entitled for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of claim case. 6. So far as the grounds raised by the driver of the offending vehicle is concerned. In the record of claim case, the driver has produced, copy of registration certificate and the copy of policy stated to be issued by the respondent No.3/insurance company vide Ex.D/1. The local office of insurance company taking note of the contents of policy (Ex.D/1), wrote a letter to Divisional Manager, New India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Patna, asking him to supply the copy of the insurance policy, if available in the office. The letter is marked as Ex.D/3, the office of Patna replied the letter written by the office of Korba mentioning that the policy was fake and it was never issued by the office at Patna, vide Ex.D/4. Similar information was again sent vide letter dated 02.08.2016 reiterating the reply of the first letter, the letters have been filed as Ex.D/4, Ex.D/5 & Ex.D/6. Ex.D/7 is a list of vehicles against which the premium was received on the relevant date as mentioned in the insurance policy and it was found that on the said relevant date no premium was deposited for the offending vehicle. 7. The respondent No.3 to prove the pleadings made in their reply have examined Mukesh Kumar as NAW-3(1), who is the Development Officer. He 4 his evidenced stated that, in the policy there is no mention of chasis number and engine number and it is mandatory to mention chasis number and engine number in the policy issued by the insurance company. 8. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respondent No.3 has arrived at a conclusion that insurance policy produced on record and relied upon by the non-applicant No.1/owner was fake and fabricated document and no premium was paid by the owner of the vehicle to purchase the insurance policy and held that on the date of accident, the vehicle was not insured. In the facts of the case and evidence available on record, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the above finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that on the date of accident vehicle was not insured. 9. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any error in the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal, fastening liability upon the respondents No.1 & 2, i.e., driver and owner to satisfy the impugned award. 10. So far as the submission made by the counsel for the appellant that for producing fake policy owner only can be held liable and to fasten liability upon the non-applicant No.2/owner of the vehicle only is concerned, undisputedly it is the duty of owner of the vehicle to maintain and keep all the documents update and only thereafter to ply the vehicle, and therefore, I find it appropriate to modify the impugned award in part and it is held that the liability to satisfy the award is upon the non-applicants No.1 & 2 jointly and severally, however, first liability to satisfy the award would be upon non- applicant No.2/owner. 11. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the driver in challenging the impugned award fastening the liability upon the driver & owner to satisfy the amount of compensation, however, award is modified to the extent as indicated above. 5 12. So far as the grounds raised in the cross objection is concerned, the claimants have pleaded that she suffered permanent disability, resulting in loss of income also. The disability certificate is filed as Ex.P/66 issued by the Medical Board mentioning 75% permanent impairment. In the note, there is specific mention that the condition of the patient/claimant is likely to improve re-assessment is recommended after a period of one year after surgery. The Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards the permanent disability or the grievous injuries, the claimant has not even submitted any document that she underwent surgery after period of one year and have further approached the Medical Board for re-assessing her disablement. In the aforementioned facts of the case, where respondent No.2/claimant failed to comply with observation made by the Medical Board and getting herself re- examined after one year, in the opinion of this Court, she will not be entitled for the compensation for loss of income due to permanent disability, however, looking to the nature of injury, which she suffered on his left leg in particular knee and ankle, the respondent No.2/Claimant suffered grievous injuries over her person. No compensation is awarded on the said head, and therefore, I find it appropriate to award compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards the grievous injuries, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, which is less in the facts of the case and looking to the nature of the injuries, I am inclined to enhance the amount of compensation under the head of pain and suffering to Rs.10,000/-. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded less amount of compensation under the head of conveyance/transportation, the claimant is a resident of Ambikapur and she also took treatment from Ram Krishna Care Hospital Raipur, she submitted the bill of transport of Dev Tour & Travels Ex.D/13 to Ex.D/17 and also the bus tickets travelling from Raipur to Ambikapur and Ambikapur to Raipur. 6 13. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I find it appropriate to enhance the amount of compensation under the head of conveyance/transporting from Rs.3,600/- to Rs.10,000/-, the claimant is also entitled to get Rs.5,000/- towards special diet and now the respondent No.2/claimant will be entitle for the compensation as under:- Particulars Compensation A) Medical bill and doctors fees B) Conveyance Expenses C) Loss of income during treatment D) Pains and suffering E) Attendant F) Grievous Injuries Rs.76,400/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.20,000/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.2,41,400/- 14. Now the claimant shall be entitled for Rs.2,41,400/-. Enhance amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 8% from the date of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions of award shall remain intact. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant/non-applicant No.1 is dismissed and the cross appeal filed by the respondent No.2/claimant allowed in part. SD/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge DEEPTI JHA NIRALA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA NIRALA