1 2025:CGHC:1932 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1985 of 2018 1 - IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Authorised Officer 205- MM Plaza, Ring Road-1, Near Khanij Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Motorcycle/ Vehicle C. G. 08 G 0740). ... Appellant versus 1 - Jogi Prasad Pardi S/o Tularam Pardi Aged About 44 Years R/o Tikrapara, Ward No. 3, Dongargarh, Thana Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant Of Motorcycle / Vehicle C. G. 08 G 0740. 2 - Vijay @ Monti Markam S/o Suresh Markam Aged About 25 Years R/o Badhiyatola, Ward No. 6, Dongargarh, Thana Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.(Non Appellant No. 1). 3 - Khemlal Chandel S/o Lakhan Lal Chandel Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Budhanbhat, Tahsil Chuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (CG). (Non Appellant No. 2). ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from CIS) For Appellant : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla and Mr. Himanshu Yadav, Advocates For Respondent No.2 : Mr. B.P. Singh and Mr. Vidhyabhushan Soni, Advocates (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 13/01/2025 1. The appellant/Insurance Company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) challenging the impugned award dated 09.8.2018 passed by the Additional Claims Tribunal, Dongargarh to the Court of First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG) in MACT Case 2 No.08/2018 (Jogi Prasad Pardi vs. Vijay @ Monti Markam and Another), whereby the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant/Insurance Company to indemnify the award of Rs.79,442/- (Seventy nine thousand four hundred and forty two only) along with interest @ 9 percent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition, till its realization. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.8,50,000/- claimed by the respondent No.1/ claimant, by filing application under Section 166 of the MV Act for the injuries sustained by him in motor accident occurred on 03.7.2013; the Claims Tribunal awarded aforesaid sum as compensation along with interest as stated above. 3. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of evidence led, material placed and submissions made by the parties, held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. CG-08-J-5921 (for short ‘offending vehicle’) by its driver Vijay @ Monti Markam /respondent No.2, which dashed the Yamaha Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. CG-08-G-0740, which was driven by claimant/ respondent No.1, his wife was sitting as pillion rider. Due to such accident, claimant and his wife fell from the motor cycle and sustained injuries. Claimant/respondent No.1 namely; Jogi Prasad Pardi filed aforesaid claim petition against his own motor cycle, which was owned by him and insured with appellant/ Insurance Company. Since Yamaha Motor Cycle of respondent No.1/claimant was insured with appellant/ Insurance Company and Rs.50 as extra premium was paid to cover risk of personal accident of owner/driver to the tune of Rs.1 lakh, therefore, respondent No.1/claimant filed aforesaid claim petition seeking relief from appellant/ Insurance Company, which was allowed by the learned Claims Tribunal to the extent of amount, which has been stated in preceding paragraph. 3 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that, although as per Insurance Policy (Ex. D-1), personal accident of owner/driver to the extent of Rs.1 lakh covered as extra premium of Rs.50 was received by the appellant/ Insurance Company, but since respondent No.1/ claimant had not sustained permanent disability, rather he had sustained only simple injuries, therefore, he is not entitled to get any compensation. He would further submit that, as per ‘Terms of Insurance Policy’, owner/driver would get compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lakh only when he sustained permanent disability, which has not been proved in instant case, therefore, order of fastening liability upon the appellant/ Insurance Company by the Claims Tribunal is perverse and illegal, hence, this appeal may be allowed and appellant/ Insurance Company may be exonerated from the payment of compensation. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 would submit that the appellant/ Insurance Company has filed a copy of Insurance Policy (Ex. D-1), but no such terms have been stipulated in the Insurance Policy of the motor cycle of the claimant/respondent No.1 that, if owner/driver will sustain permanent disability, then only he will be entitled to get compensation against the personal accident, therefore, the order impugned is just and proper, does not call for any interference of this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record as well as record of the Claims Tribunal. 7. The only contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant is, as per terms of Insurance Policy, risk of owner/driver was covered for payment of compensation of Rs.1 lakh under the condition that, if they sustained permanent disability, but, perusal of Insurance Policy (Ex. D-1) shows that nothing has been mentioned in that policy, which is only a 4 page that against Rs.50 as extra premium received by appellant/ Insurance Policy, compensation of Rs.1 lakh shall be payable only if owner/driver sustained permanent disability. No such condition has been proved by appellant/ Insurance Company and Rs. 79,442/- granted by the learned Claims Tribunal to the respondent No.1 /claimant is based on medical documents and nature of injuries caused to the claimant. 8. In view of above discussion, it is found that the appellant/ Insurance Company has utterly failed to prove such condition as has been stated by its counsel before this Court and personal accident of owner/driver was covered up to the extent of Rs. 1 lakh by the Insurance Company after receiving Rs. 50 as extra premium, therefore, learned Claims Tribunal rightly fastened liability upon the appellant/ Insurance Company to indemnify the amount of award. 9. The order impugned does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, as such, the appeal fails and hereby dismissed. 10. Record of the Claims Tribunal be returned forthwith. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.01.15 11:05:20 +0530