1 2025:CGHC:33333 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1910 of 2019 • H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company Limited (The Tribunal Mentioned S.D.F.C. Wrongly In Place Of H.D.F.C.), Vinijjaya Building, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1. Smt. Chandrakala Bisen, W/o Late Chotelal Bisen, Aged About 45 Years, Occupation Housewife, R/o Changorabhata, Near Ashadeep School, Thana D.D. Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Claimant). 2. Ashok Yadav, S/o Motilal Yadav, R/o Village Banki Mongra, Korba, Tehsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Vehicle No. C.G.-12-S- 2707). 3. Rajiv Ranjan Rai, S/o Awadhesh Rai, R/o H. No. L.I.G. D-1, Ravi Shankar Shukla Nagar, Near Niharika Talkies, Korba, Tehsil & District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Vehicle No. C.G.-12-S-2707). --- Respondents AND MAC No. 159 of 2020 • Smt. Chandrakala Bisen, W/o Lt. Chotelal Bisen, Aged About 45 Years, Profession House Wife, Residence Of Changorabhata, Near Ashadeep School, Police Station D.D. Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001. ---Appellant Versus 1. Ashok Yadav, S/o Motilal Yadav, Profession Driver, Resident Of Village Banki Mongra, Korba, Tehsil & District Korba, Chhattisgarh 495447 (Driver). 2 2. Rajiv Ranjan Rai, S/o Avdhesh Rai, Resident Of House No. L.I.G.-D/1, Ravi Shankar Shukla Nagar, Near Niharika Talkies, Korba, Tehsil & District Korba, Chhattisgarh 495447 (Owner). 3. H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. Commercial Building, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001 (Insurer). --- Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant in MAC No.1910/2019 and for respondent No.3 in MAC No.159/2020 : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi and Mr. Ashish Pandey, counsel appear on behalf of Mr. N. K. Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 in MAC No.1910/2019 and for appellant in MAC No.159/2020 : Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 16/07/2025 1. As both the appeals arises out of the same accident, therefore, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Being aggrieved with the award dated 31.07.2019 passed by the learned Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.360/2014, appellants in both the appeals have filed appeals. 3. MAC No.159/2020 is filed by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation of Rs.2,57,216/- awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No.330/2013 in a personal injury case. 4. MAC No.1910/2019 is filed by the appellant/insurance company/non- applicant No.3 in Claim Case No.360/2014, challenging the impugned 3 award dated 31.07.2019 on the ground that the amount of compensation awarded in the facts of the case is on higher side. 5. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 19.10.2013, claimant/appellant was coming on a motorcycle bearing Registration No.CG-04-KJ-2181 driven by her known person and when they reached near Baba Dhaba at about 5:30 pm, a truck bearing Registration No.CG-12-S-2707 driven by the non applicant No.1 rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle on which claimant was travelling as a pillion from its back, as a result she sustained severe injuries and was admitted to Raipur Medical College. On report of accident, a case was registered against non applicant No.1 before the Police Station Amanaka. Subsequently, a claim petition was filed by the claimant before learned Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.12,50,000/-, on the ground that in the accident she suffered fracture of her both legs, she took treatment as inpatient, also undervent operation. Prior to accident, she was earning Rs.7000/- per month by giving tuition to the children, but after motor accidental injuries, she is unable to work, as she was doing earlier. Claim application of the claimant was partly allowed and Rs.2,57,216/- was awarded in favour of the claimant payable by the respondent No.3 insurance company. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant in MAC No.159/2020 submits that the learned Claims Tribunal did not consider the evidence of Doctor (AW-2) properly, wherein he stated that claimant suffered 55% permanent disability, whereas the learned Claims Tribunal only considered 35% permanent disability for whole body and accordingly awarded meager amount of compensation. Nature of injuries suffered by the claimant are 4 grievous, resulting into permanent disability in her both legs and is unable to work. Therefore, compensation awarded be suitably enhanced. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 opposes the submission made by the appellant’s counsel and submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding lump-sum amount of Rs.2 Lakhs to the claimant for her injury. If Claims Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that Claimant is entitled for loss of future earnings, then computation of compensation under the head of loss of income, has to be done in accordance with law and further admissible compensation on other heads can also be awarded, however, it is to be specified, which has not been done, thus the appellant has already been awarded excess compensation. Counsel for the insurance company further submits that the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is challenged by the insurance company in MAC No.1910/2019 on the ground that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in not considering the evidence produced by the insurance company to prove that the license of the non applicant No.1/driver of the offending vehicle was a fake license, as it was not issued in his name and further that the amount of compensation awarded in the facts of the case is excessive. He also contended that the Claims Tribunal erred in recording a finding that the claimant suffered 35% of loss of earning capacity, which is without proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence. The Claims Tribunal has further not considered that the Dr. A. A. Saifi (AW-2), who issued the disability certificate, is not a member of Medical Board, and therefore, the certificate (Ex-P/4) could not have been relied upon to consider the permanent disability and assessing loss of earning capacity of the claimant. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and compensation awarded be reduced. 5 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of claim case. 9. So far as the ground raised by the counsel for the appellant/insurance company in MAC No.1910/2019 about accepting the evidence of Dr. A. A. Saifi (AW-2) and relying upon the disability certificate issued by him vide Ex- P/4 is concerned, Dr. A. A. Saifi (AW-2) though not a member of Medical Board, but is a retired Orthopedic Surgeon from Medical College. He treated the injured for some time, copies of medical prescription are filed as Ex.P/2. In above facts of the case, submission of counsel for the appellant that the Claims Tribunal erred in accepting the disability certificate (Ex-P/4), relying upon the evidence of doctor (AW-2) is not sustainable. Accordingly, it is repealed . 10. So far as the other submission made by the counsel for the appellant that the License No.3018/2009 was not issued in the name of non applicant No.1, but in name of Rohit Oraon as per information supplied by the District Transport Office, Ranchi (Jharkhand) is concerned, learned Claims Tribunal recorded a finding that the License No.3018/2009 was neither produced by the claimant nor by the non-applicant No.1. Perusal of record would show that claimant has filed copy of seizure memo (Ex- P/7) by which police seized the Truck, RC Book of the Truck, Fitness Certificate, Insurance Policy, Permit and also License of the driver valid upto 23.09.2015. 11. Insurance company, before the Claims Tribunal did not produce certified copy of the license seized by the police, forming part of the charge sheet. In absence of copy of the license seized by police, submission of counsel for appellant that license seized was not issued from the RTO would not be accepted as gospel truth that the details of license sent for verification 6 was same as seized. The ground of breach of policy condition was raised by the insurance company, and therefore, burden to prove the said defense/plea taken, was upon insurance company, in which, it utterly failed. In absence of proof of license number, got verified was the same license number, mentioned in the license seized from the possession of non applicant No.1/driver of the offending vehicle. 12. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the insurance company, i.e., MAC No.1910/2019 and the same being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly. 13. So far as the ground raised by claimant/appellant in MAC No.159/2020 is concerned, claimant has produced copy of the medical bills, prescription and disability certificate. Before issuing the disability certificate, Dr. S.S. Saifi (AW-2) examined the claimant on couple of occasions and the medical prescription/slip is also filed in record as Ex.P/1, Ex.P/2 & Ex.P/3, which are dated 15.05.2017, 13.11.2017 & 14.11.2017, respectively. Doctor after giving treatment to the claimant for the aforementioned period had issued permanent disability certificate, mentioning disablement suffered by the claimant to the extent of 55%. 14. True, it is that the doctor (AW-2) is not a member of medical board, however, he is a retired Orthopedic Surgeon from Medical College, Raipur. In the aforementioned facts of the case and considering the fact that doctor (AW-2) is a retired government servant Orthopedic Specialist, he gave treatment to claimant on many dates, and therefore, I do not find any error in accepting the disability certificate issued by AW-2 in evidence. From the disability certificate, it is appearing that the claimant suffered severe injuries on both of her legs. She could not prove nature of occupation and her income by admissible evidence. In the 7 aforementioned facts of the case, even if the claimant is to be treated to be working as labourer, looking to the nature of injury and the part of body, on which she suffered injuries, it cannot be ruled out that the injuries have affected her work and income. Learned Claims Tribunal rightly assessed the loss of income of the claimant as 35%, but the compensation towards the loss of income is to be computed keeping in mind the wages prevailing, and therefore, income of the claimant is assessed as Rs.4,500/- per month notionally. By adding 25% towards future prospects, applying the multiplier of 14 looking to the age of the claimant at the time of accident, the compensation would come as under:- Sr. Particulars Compensation 1. Annual Loss of income/ dependency Rs.54,000/- (Rs.4,500 x 12) 2. Future prospects @ 25% (Rs.54,000 x 25% = Rs.67,500) 3. Multiplier of 14 (Rs.67,500 x 14 = 9Rs.,45,000/-) 4. Loss of income due to 35% permanent disability (Rs.9,45,000 x 35% = Rs.3,30,750/-) Total amount Rs.3,30,750/- 15. From the aforementioned facts of the case, the compensation which the claimant would be entitled considering the loss of income of 35% towards permanent disability would come to Rs.3,30,750/-. The claimant will also be entitled for Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.21,516/- towards medical expenses, Rs.700/- for X-Ray Charges & Rs.10,000/- towards attendant and special diet, as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Thus the claimant is entitled to the total compensation of Rs.3,87,966/- (3,30,750/- + 25,000 + 21,516 + 700 + 10,000). 16. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any 8 amount pursuant to impugned award already paid shall be adjusted from the compensation computed and awarded by this Court. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 17. In the result, MAC No.159/2020 is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above and MAC No.1910/2019 stands dismissed. SD/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge DEEPTI JHA NIRALA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA NIRALA