1 2025:CGHC:16409 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1708 of 2018 • Motilal Yadav S/o Late Kapoorchand (disable), Wife Smt. Saraswati Yadav, Permanent Address Village Aarka, Post Office Singhanpur, Police Station Keshkal, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. Present Address- Through Pravin Yadav, Jhanda Chowk, Sanjay Nagar, Raipur, Police Station Tikarapara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant/Claimant versus 1. Manchit Vaidya S/o Shivlal Vaidya, Caste Kalar, R/o Bakel, P.S. Bhanupari District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. (Driver of Vehicle No. CG-18-D-0340). 2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Through Divisional Manager (Division No. 1), The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Madina Building, Kachachari Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of Vehicle No. CG-18-D- 0340). 3. Rakesh Kumar Dewangan R/o Kailash Nagar Dantewada, Dstrict Dantewada (Chhattisgarh). (Owner of Vehicle No. CG-28-D-0340). ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Adv. For Respondents No. 1 & 3 : None. For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Pranoti Das, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Adv. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.04.09 10:29:13 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Order on Board ( 07 .0 4 .202 5 ) 1. This is the claimants’ appeal against the award dated 21.08.2018 passed by the learned 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.42/2015 whereby a total compensation of Rs. 1,02,601/- with interest @ 7.5% has been awarded in favour of the claimant/appellant. 2. As against the compensation of Rs. 79,50,000/- claimed by the claimant/appellant by filing a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) for his injury in the motor accident on 19.01.2014 at about 01:00 pm; the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,02,601/- 3. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence, held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG-18-D-0340 by its driver Manchit Vaidya – respondent No.1 herein; appellant Motilal Yadav sustained injuries on her body in the accident; the tribunal on the basis of evidence a total compensation of Rs. 1,02,601/- has awarded in the following manner: S.No. Heads Amount 01 Towards Medical bills with regard to treatment Rs. 2,601/- 02 Towards Physical and Mental pain Rs. 50,000/- 03 Towards nutritious diet Rs. 25,000/- 04 Towards transportation and attendant expenses Rs. 25,000/- Total Rs. 1,02,601/- 3 4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was admitted in Apollo Hospital for 96 days and underwent treatment for which an expenditure of Rs. 6,33,820/- was incurred by the appellant as per Exhibits P-16 and P-17, which have not been given by the Tribunal. The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that Dr. P. Vijay has certified the permanent disability certificate (Ex.P-21) issued by the Medical Board, according to which he had suffered 60% disability, but the loss of his income has not been calculated on that head, which should be calculated and he should be given the amount in that head also. Appellant has been admitted in the hospital for 96 days, he is likely to have to spend money on treatment in future also. Therefore, the compensation amount should be increased in other heads also, and a proper compensation may be awarded in favour of the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposes the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned award. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and respondent No.2 and perused the record of the Tribunal including award impugned. 7. In this case, Motilal Yadav (PW-1) himself, his wife Saraswati Bai (PW-2), eyewitness Borot Beg (PW-3), Assistant Bill Officer Vijay Singh Bais (PW-4) of Ramakrishna Care Hospital, Raipur and Medical Officer Dr. P. Vijay (PW-5) of Medical Board District Hospital, Bijapur were examined on behalf of the claimant. The evidence of all of them makes it clear that the injured Motilal Yadav is a Head Constable in the Police Department who is not only still in service even after the injury sustained in the 4 accident, but he has not suffered any loss of salary or income due to the said injury. Where Motilal Yadav, Head Constable himself has admitted that he does not have any problem in standing or hearing, he does not have any problem in driving a motorcycle, he is receiving salary while doing his job in the police department. There has been no adverse effect on his salary due to the accident. It is not mentioned whether the disability certificate Ex.P-21 is permanent or temporary. Thus, it is clear that Motilal Yadav has not suffered any loss of income as a result of the injury sustained in the accident. In such a situation, there is no need to make any calculation in the head of loss of income in future on the basis of 60% disability certificate. 8. So far as the question of treatment expenses is concerned, in this regard, Vijay Singh Bais (PW-4) has stated that he is working as Assistant Bill Officer at Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur where Motilal Yadav was admitted from 20/01/2014 to 26/04/2014 and got treatment and as per Ex.P-16 and Ex.P-17 the bill for treatment expenses is Rs. 6,33,820/-. During the trial in the court, when the injured Motilal Yadav was questioned about getting reimbursement of the said bill from the Police Department, he did not give any clear answer to it and on that basis it has been determined by the Tribunal that the appellant Motilal Yadav has not produced the original document of the alleged treatment expenses bill which shows that he has already received its reimbursement from the Police Department and due to this reason no award has been made in the said head. 9. Appellant, Moti Lal's wife, Saraswati Bai (PW-2), has admitted in her evidence that she has received Rs. 3,50,000/- from the Government towards medical expenses. 5 In cross-examination, she has stated that the documents from Ex.P-16 to Ex.P-21 are duplicate bills. She has admitted that payment is received on submitting the original bill to the Government and she had submitted the bills from Ex.P-16 to Ex.P-19 to the Government. She has also admitted that she has not submitted any documents on how much amount she or her husband received from the Government. 10. In the above situation, when the wife has admitted to receiving the compensation amount and the claimant/appellant Motilal Yadav himself has not given clear information about the compensation, the original bills/receipts have also not been submitted, no error is found in the award in question. As such, the finding of the Tribunal is based on the proper appreciation of the evidence available on record which does not call for any interference. 11. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussions, the appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge H.L. Sahu