-1- 2025:CGHC:28228 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1957 of 2019 Rohit Prajapati S/o Dholuram Prajapati Aged About 30 Years R/o Mohara, Ward No. 41, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Ramkrishan Yadav S/o Harish Singh Aged About 41 Years R/o Chhattisgarh Engineering, Yokul Nagar Dongargaon Road, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Driver And Owner Of Offending Vehicle JCB - CG-08-P-2240). 2 - The New India Insurance Company Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate along with Mr. Arvind Prasad Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 26/06/2025 1. This is the claimant’s appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (CG) vide award dated 15th May 2019 passed in Claim Case No.36 of 2017. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellant/claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon, Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.07.07 11:06:03 +0530 -2- pleading therein that non-applicant No.1 is the driver and owner of the offending vehicle JCB No. CG 08/P/2240. The applicant was working as a mechanic with non-applicant No. 1. On 04.03.2013 when JCB No. CG/08/P/2240 broke down while working, applicant went to repair it and started doing his work, the applicant's helper was also with him. When the applicant was about to come out after repairing the engine of the JCB, non-applicant No. 1 suddenly started JCB, due to which the JCB jerked backwards and the soil lifting holder of the JCB suddenly came down and fell on the applicant's back, after which the applicant got stuck under the holder of the JCB and got seriously injured. In the accident, the applicant suffered serious injuries in his waist, hip and stomach, for which he was treated in the District Hospital Rajnandgaon. Since the accident, applicant is unable to do his work properly. After the accident, applicant was hospitalized for several days. Even after being discharged from the hospital, the applicant's health was not completely recovered and on the advice of doctor he took rest at home for about 3 months. The applicant was working as a motor mechanic, was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month and maintaining himself and his family, but due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the applicant suffered permanent disability of 45%. He prayed for grant of total compensation of Rs.10,95,000/- from non-applicants due to loss suffered by him in the said accident. 3. In the claim proceedings, non-applicant No.1 was proceeded ex-parte, no written statement was filed on his behalf. 4. Non-applicant No. 2/Insurance Company has denied the averments -3- made in the claim application and has stated that on the date of accident, driver of JCB vehicle No. CG 08/P/2240 did not have a valid driving license. Therefore, if any compensation is awarded to claimant, then liability to pay the same would be of non-applicant No.1. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was being operated by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, caused accident to appellant/claimant. Recording a finding that in the accident appellant/claimant did not sustain any grievous injury resulting in his permanent disability; breach of the conditions of insurance policy was not found proved, learned Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim application, awarded total amount of compensation of Rs.60,000/ -, held non-applicants liable. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager sum of compensation overlooking the injuries suffered by the appellant/claimant. He submits that as there is no denial of the fact that the appellant suffered injuries with the said offending vehicle, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have awarded proper amount of compensation taking note of the injuries suffered by him and loss of income during the period appellant took treatment in the hospital. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/Insurance Company submits that learned Claims Tribunal on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record has awarded just amount of compensation for which the appellant was -4- entitled for, hence, impugned award does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of claim case. 9. The appellant in support of his claim application produced on record copy of final report as Ex.P-1, FIR as Ex.P-2, seizure memo as Ex.P-3, crime details form as Ex.P4 and disability certificate as Ex.P-5. 10. Sole ground raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that learned Claims Tribunal failed to appreciate the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant in the accident and not awarding proper compensation in the facts of case. However, no document is placed on record by the appellant such as- medical prescription, medical bills or any other document issued by any of the hospital to suggest that the appellant has taken treatment for the injuries suffered by him in the said accident. Therefore, in absence of any clinching evidence brought on record by the appellant, submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant suffered grievous injuries is not acceptable in the facts of the case and is accordingly repelled. 11. Though the appellant has placed on record the disability certificate as Ex.P-5 to prove that in the said accident he suffered permanent disablement of 45%, no doctor/expert has been examined to prove the disability certificate before the Claims Tribunal. In his evidence appellant/claimant (AW1) himself admitted in his cross-examination that he has not produced any document such as medical prescription, medical bill, discharge ticket etc. He further admitted that the disability certificate produced by him is four year’s old and it was valid for three -5- years. Most importantly, he admitted that he has not produced any x- ray report of fracture over his waist in the accident. In absence of any evidence to prove the disability certificate (Ex.P-5) it cannot be presumed that the extent of disability mentioned in the certificate was a result of injuries suffered by the appellant in the same accident. 12. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellant with respect to loss of income of appellant due to injuries suffered by him is concerned as there is no medical documents available on record to prove that appellant was hospitalized, took treatment for the injuries suffered by him and because of the injuries he could not able to perform his work. 13. It is well settled that the burden lies on the claimant/appellant to prove injury and disability by producing credible medical evidence. Mere assertion of injury without medical proof is insufficient to justify an award of compensation. Learned Claims Tribunal looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, has already award compensation of Rs.60,000/- which appears to be just and proper. 14. For the foregoing discussions, I do not find any error in the impugned award passed by learned Claims Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. 15. The appeal being devoid of substance is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen