1 2025:CGHC:35902 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2011 of 2023 Devendra Kumar Sahu S/o Bhushan Das Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Near School Chowk, Borsi,, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh … Appellant versus 1 - Anshul Haldkar S/o Rajnarayan Haldkar Aged About 26 Years R/o H. No. 1- D, Street No. 34, Sector- 6, Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil And District- Durg, Cg (Driver Of Car No. Cg- 07- Bc-9053) 2 - Rajnarayan Haldkar S/o Haldkar Aged About 60 Years R/o H. No. 1- D, Street No. 34, Sector- 6, Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil And District- Durg, Cg (Owner Of Car No. Cg- 07- Bc- 9053) 3 - United India Insurance Company Limited Paras Complex, Station Road, Durg, District- Durg, Cg Through Branch Office, Near Chandra- Mourya Talkies , Chouhan Towers, Supela- Bhilai,tehsil And District- Durg Cg (Insurer Of Car No. Cg- 07- Bc- 9053) ... Respondents HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.07.29 11:01:05 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. Shivam Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company) : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 24.07 .2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/claimant challenging the impugned award dated 31/08/2023 passed by Learned 1st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No. MACT/226/2019 whereby compensation of Rs. 50,000/- has been granted with an interest of 9 % per annum. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that on 27/10/2018 at about 10:45 PM, the appellant herein along with his friends was travelling from Durg to Rajnandgaon in a car and near Shivnath River at Anjora Road, Pulgaon, respondent No. 1, who was driving Honda City Car bearing Registration No. CG 07-BC/9053 in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the appellant’s vehicle and caused an accident due to which appellant suffered grievous injuries. The accident report was lodged at Police Station Pulgaon and Crime No. 414/2018 was registered against respondent No. 1 for 3 offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304- A of IPC and charge-sheet was submitted before the Court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that without following the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in the matters of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another1 and Prakash Chand Sharma v. Rambabu Saini2 learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant as compensation which is arbitrary and bad in law, therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 would support the impugned award and submit that both of these appeals are liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions and perused the record. 6. Admittedly, though the appellant has pleaded that on account of the accident, he has suffered permanent disability but no evidence has been led by him in this regard, however, in this case, the course open to the Claims Tribunal was to follow the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Kumar (supra), wherein it has been held as under :- 1 (2011) 1 SCC 343 2 2025 SCC Online SC 276 4 “18… If the Tribunal is not satisfied with the medical evidence produced by the claimant, it can constitute a Medical Board (from a panel maintained by it in consultation with reputed local hospitals/medical colleges) and refer the claimant to such Medical Board for assessment of the disability.” 7. Similarly, paragraph 9 of the judgment rendered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Prakash Chand Sharma (supra) states as under :- “9. The Tribunal questioned the competence of the Medical Board to assess the permanent disability of the claimant – appellant, terming the certificate of the Medical Board as not completely reliable. If the Tribunal had reason to doubt the medical certificate, the option available before it was to have the disability re-assessed but it could not have gone into the details of the determination of disability. Since that course of action has not been adopted, the opinion of the Medical Board, being an opinion of the experts is to be treated as such. That apart, the comatose state of the claimant-appellant is not in dispute.” 8. In view of the aforesaid legal discussion, the impugned award dated 31/08/2023 passed by the Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. MACT/226/2019 is hereby partly set aside to the extent of rejection of appellant’s claim holding that he has not suffered permanent disability and the Claims Tribunal is directed to refer the appellant to the Medical Board for assessment of his disability and after receiving the report, pass an award in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this 5 order. The amount already paid to the appellant shall not be recovered from him and it will be adjusted while passing the fresh award. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet