1 2025:CGHC:25398 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1173 of 2017 Ramjeet Sahu S/o Late Bhukhal Ram Sahu, Aged About 40 Years R/o Dalganjan Dafai, Chirmiri, Tahsil Manendragarh, (Wrongly Mention As Khadgawa), District Koriya Chhattisgarh.................... Claimant, --- Appellant Versus 1 - Prakash S/o Bancha, Aged About 51 Years R/o Chief House, Godripara, Chirmiri, Tahsil Khadgawa, District Koriya. ....................... Driver And Owner 2 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Branch Manager, Branch Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh.......... Insurer, --- Respondents MAC No. 684 of 2017 Deepak Kumar Dey S/o Late Niranjan Dey, Aged About 38 Years R/o Godripara, Near Radha Krishna Mandir, Post Office And Police Station Chirmiri, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh ..............Claimant, ---Appellant Versus 1 - Ramjeet Sahu S/o Late Bhukhal Ram Sahu, Aged About 40 Years R/o Dalganjan Dafai, Post Office And Police Station Chirmiri, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh .............[Driver Of Vehicle Motor Cycle Bearing Registration No. C.G.04 C G 0553] 2 - Shyamlal Agrawal S/o Mansa Ram Agrawal, Aged About 65 Years Occupation Vehicle Owner, R/o Fafadih, Raipur, Post Office Raipur, Police Station Ganj, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ............. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.06.24 18:21:45 +0530 2 [Registered Owner Of Vehicle Motor Cycle Bearing Registration No. C.G.04 C G 0553] 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Bilaspur, Bus Stand Road, Post Office Bilaspur, Police Station Tarbahar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh .............[Insurer Of Vehicle Motor Cycle Bearing Registration No. C.G.04 C G 0553] --- Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) (MAC No.1173 of 2017) For Appellant : Mr. Virendra Vaishnav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent No.2 Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate (MAC No.684 of 2017) For Appellant : Mr. Shubham Rao Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Virendra Vaishnav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent No.3 Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ratan Pusty, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 18.06.2025 1. As the above two appeals arise out of same accident and common question is involved in it, therefore, they have been clubbed together, heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. 3 2. Challenge in both the appeals is to the award dated 22.02.2017 passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.26/2016 and Claim Case No.25/2016, respectively whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application of Deepak Kumar Day in part as well as dismissed the claim application filed by claimant Ramjit Sahu. 3. MAC No.1173/2017 and MAC No.684/2017 have been filed by the injured claimant for enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 4. Brief facts of these appeals, in a nutshell, are that, on 20.10.2008, Deepak Kumar Dey and Prakash were travelling on the scooter bearing registration No.CG-16/ZE/2238 and going towards Godripara from Haldibadi, at that relevant time, Ramjit Sahu while driving motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-04/CG/0553 rashly and negligently, dashed the scooter of Deepak Kumar Dey, due to which, both of them fell down and suffered injuries on their vital parts of the body. In the said accident, Ramjit Sahu was also fell down from the motorcycle and suffered injuries over his person. The accident was reported to the concerned police station. 5. The injured claimant Deepak Kumar Dey has filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘M.V. Act’) seeking total compensation of Rs.19,37,958/- as also Ramjit 4 Sahu has filed an application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act seeking total compensation of Rs.1,70,530/-. 6. The driver and owner of both the vehicles submitted reply to claim application and denied the fact of accident itself. It was pleaded that on the date of accident, though Shyamlal Sahu was the registered owner of the vehicle, but the same has been sold out to Ramjit Sahu on 25.07.2008. It was further pleaded that offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, as such, liability, if any, to satisfy the compensation would be upon the Insurance Company. 7. Insurance Company submitted reply to claim application, resisting the claim. It has been pleaded that driver of both the vehicles were not possessed with valid and effective licence, as such, there was breach of policy conditions, hence, Insurance Company be exonerated from its liability. 8. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, Tribunal held that the claimants in both the petitions have suffered grievous injury in the said motor accident, as such, while awarding compensation of Rs.29,000/- to Deepak Kumar Dey as total compensation, fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the non-applicants No.1 and 2 therein jointly and severally and the claim petition filed on behalf of the claimant Ramjit Sahu was rejected. 5 9. Learned counsel for the claimant in MAC No.1173/2017 submits that there was a head on collusion as such, the claim petition filed on behalf of claimant Ramjit Sahu needs to be allowed. He further submits that learned Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim of the claimant on the ground that he himself was negligent and hence, not entitled for any amount of compensation, which is erroneous and bad in law. Learned Claims Tribunal ought to have awarded some amount of compensation to the claimant. It has been contended that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in law in not taking into consideration the fact that the claimant has also suffered injury in the said motor accident. As such, the appeal be allowed and some amount of compensation be awarded in favour of the claimant. 10. Learned counsel for the claimant in MAC No.684/2017 submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in disbelieving the evidence adduced by the claimant to the effect that due to accident, he was unable to walk, sit and stand properly as well as his work was affected because of injuries sustained in his left leg. He further submits that learned Claims Tribunal has grossly erred in not accepting and considering the disability certificate in proper manner, by which he has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 30%. It has been contended that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in applying proper multiplier as also in awarding meagre amount of compensation, which needs to be enhanced suitably. 6 11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that while considering the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned order, which needs no interference by this Court. 12. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the claim case with utmost circumspection. 13. From perusal of the impugned award, it transpires that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving / own negligence of all the three persons, i.e. Ramjit Sahu, Deepak Kumar Dey and one Prakash. It also transpires that though the claimant Deepak Kumar Dey has pleaded that he has suffered severe injuries, due to which he has suffered permanent disability, but he has not filed any permanent disability certificate in support of his contention. Dr. S.N. Banerjee (AW-5) has stated in his evidence that though his femur bone was fractured, but in the last consultation, he was fit. Dr. Rajendra Bansariya (AW-4) has stated in his evidence that he has issued temporary disability certificate to the extent of 30%, but the claimant has not permanent disabled. As such, the permanent disability has not been proved. 14. From the impugned award, it is apparent that the Claims Tribunal while considering the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards physical and mental agony, Rs.6,000/- towards lack of amenities, Rs.3,000/- towards conveyance, special diet and attendant i.e. total compensation of 7 Rs.29,000/- was awarded to the claimant Deepak Kumar Dey, whereas the claim application filed on behalf of the claimant Ramjit Sahu was rejected on the ground that the accident occurred due to rash and negligence driving of Ramjit Sahu as also on the date of accident, he was not possessed with valid and effective driving licence, as such, there was breach of policy conditions of the insurance policy. 15. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any illegality and irregularity in passing the impugned order while rejecting the claim application of the claimant Ramjit Sahu and awarding Rs.29,000/- to the claimant Deepak Kumar Dey. 16. In the result, the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal, is quite in order and does not call for any interference. The appeals being MAC Nos.1173/2017 and 684/2017 fail and are dismissed accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh