1 2025:CGHC:16487 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1854 of 2018 1 - Ram Prasad Sahu S/o Late Ramdayal Sahu Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Ranai, Police Station Patna, District - Koriya, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) ... Appellant versus 1 - Sukhlal S/o Bahoran Rajwade Aged About 25 Years R/o Jagarnathpur, Police Station Ramanujnagar, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner) 2 - Sandeep Kumar S/o Baliram Rajwade Aged About 25 Years R/o Tenduwa, Police Station Patna, District - Koriya, Chhattisgarh (Driver). 3 - Branch Manager the Oriental Insurance Company, Branch Ambedkar Chowk, Ambikapur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ... Respondents For the appellant : Mr. G.V. Kutumba Rao, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Krishna Kant Prajapati, Advocate. For respondent no.3 : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO 2 Judgment/Order on Board 08/04/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed challenging the award dated 10th September, 2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC) Koriya in Claim Case No.41/2017. By the impugned award, the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.65,727/- as total compensation to the injured/claimant. 2. According to the facts pleaded in claim case, on 06.11.2015 at about 8.am., when the claimant/appellant was going on his motorcycle with one Chhotelal Rajwar to Tenduva field, on the way near Renai Keshav Ata Chakki non applicant/respondent no.2 Sandeep who was driving the Motorcycle bearing Regn. No.C.G.15 CM 2339 in rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle of appellant from behind and caused grievous injuries on his leg and head. The appellant was admitted in Govt. Hospital Patna and thereafter was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur where he was treated from 06.11.2015 to 18.11.2015. His left leg was operated and a rod was inserted. Therefore, he filed application claiming a total compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- on different heads. 3. The learned claims Tribunal after considering the evidence and documents brought on record found that due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.2 the accident took place wherein the appellant sustained injuries and granted a total compensation of Rs.65,727/- which includes travelling expenses Rs.4000/-, nutritious food Rs.4000/-, attendant charges Rs.6,000/-, treatment expenses Rs.1727/- and pain and agony Rs.50,000/-. 4.1 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to injuries sustained by the claimant in the said accident, he was admitted in Apollo 3 hospital where he was treated from 06.11.2015 to 18.11.2015, his leg was operated and a rod was inserted, for which, he incurred expenses to the tune of Rs.2,36,628/- vide Ex.15. However, the Tribunal has not considered the medical bills on the ground that he would have been provided treatment free of cost being retired employee of SECL. He further submits that after passing the award, the appellant filed an application under RTI Act on 20.09.2018 seeking information about the reimbursement of the medical bills by the department and the documents supplied by the SECL shows that no reimbursement was made being a retired employee. He submits that looking to the medical expenses incurred by the appellant, the total compensation of Rs.65,727/- awarded by the Tribunal is very meagre and the award may suitably be enhanced. 4.2 He further submits that even if the Insurance Company has been absolved from the liability to compensate, the claimant should not be allowed to suffer and run about to release the compensation awarded, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have passed an order of “pay and recover” so that the claimants/appellants could have received the compensation without delay. Hence the appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation and for an order of pay and recover. 5. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 supports the award and submits that the compensation has rightly been awarded and does not require any interference by this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Injured appellant Ram Prasad Sahu (P.W.1) states that he has suffered grievous injuries due to the accident and was admitted in Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur from 06.11.2015 to 18.11.2015 and had undergone 4 treatment for which he incurred medical expenses of Rs.2,36,628/- apart from other expenditure. The certified copy of treatment expenses bill of Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur is placed on record as Ex.P-15. The appellant has denied that his treatment expenses have been reimbursed by the the SECL. The learned Tribunal after examining the Bills (Ex.P-15) noted that the words “retired” and “SECL Bilaspur Headquarters” are mentioned against “letter number” and “Area” respectively and thus held that the applicant has not produced any receipt or other document showing the payment of the amount mentioned in the bills produced him and as such, it is not proved that the appellant himself has paid the amount mentioned in Ex.P-15 and by holding thus the Tribunal has granted only Rs.1727/- for treatment expenses on the basis of the OPD receipts Ex.P-16 to 20. 8. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the award, the appellants has applied for supply of information under RTI Act and the information supplied by the department is annexed as Annexure-2 to the Application filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. The said document produced by the appellant has been taken on record as additional evidence. The information supplied by the SECL (Annexure A-2) makes it clear that the appellant being a retired employee, no reimbursement was made regarding medical expenses Ex.P-15 incurred by him. Under the circumstances, since the Tribunal has not granted any sum towards the bills of medical expenses (Ex.P-15) though the appellant has undergone treatment in Apollo hospital for 12 days where his left leg was operated and a rod was inserted, this Court is inclined to grant Rs. 2,36,628.00 incurred by the appellant towards medical treatment expenses vide Ex.P-15. In view of the above discussion, the compensation is recomputed as follows: 5 A Treatment expenses as per Ex.P-15 plus OPD Charges as granted by the Tribunal 2,36,628 plus R.1,727 2,38,355/- B Travelling expenses 4,000/- C Nursing Assistant charges 6,000/- D Nutritious food 4,000/- E Pain and suffering 50,000/- Total Rs. 3,02,355/- 9. Thus the total compensation is recomputed to Rs.3,02,355/- from which after deduction of Rs.65,727/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.2,36,628/-. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The claimants are entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 2,36,628/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. 11. As far as the question of pay and recover is concerned, in this case, the vehicle was found to be insured but the Insurance Company was exonerated from its liability due to violation of terms of insurance policy conditions. The appellant has requested for an order of pay and recover which was opposed by the Insurance Company. 12. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297, Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down that the claimants should not be allowed to suffer and run about to release the compensation awarded and that, it is in the fitness of things that the Insurance Company in such cases should first pay and then recover the amount. Further, considering the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Amrit Paul Singh Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd (2018) 7 SCC 558, ordering the 6 insurance company to pay first and then recover and also taking note of the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly the fact that at the time of accident the vehicle was insured with Insurance Company, it is directed that the Insurance Company shall first pay the amount of compensation awarded to the appellant/claimant and then recover the same from the owner/driver of the offending vehicle. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 14. The registry is further directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area where the claimants reside. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao