1 2025:CGHC:55645 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 5 of 2022 Mrityunjay Dewangan, S/o. Tejram Dewangan, Caste Kosta, Aged About 19 Years, Waad Mitra Tejram, S/o. Sukhru Dewangan, Caste Kosta, Aged About 41 Years, R/o. Bhawarpur, P.S. And Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. At Present Address Kostha Para, Bilaigarh, P.S. Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Mahendra Das, S/o. Ramdas, Aged About 25 Years, R/o. Ichhapur, P.S. Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle Maruti Van No. CG04LD 8106) 2 - Ramanuj Prasad Gupta, S/o. Sarju Prasad Gupta, Aged About 42 Years, R/o. Himaliyan Heights Dugartarai, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. At Present Address Gupta Bihari Dhaba, Chhindpali (Saraipali), District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle Maruti Van No. CG4LD 8106) 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Of Ambika Complex, Canal Avenue Bargarh, District Bargarh, (Orisha) ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.11.17 16:29:06 +0530 2 Pin 768028, Phone 232815. (Insurance Company Of Vehicle Maruti Van No. CG04LD 8106) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Jai Prakash Yadu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate Mr. Saurabh Gupta & Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocates appeared as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 14.11.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant/ claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 04.10.2021 passed by learned Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, in Claim Case No.152/2018, by which the claim application of the claimant has been allowed and an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,60,470/- has been awarded to the claimant along-with interest @7% per annum for the permanent disability suffered by him in the accident in question. 3 2. Though the appellant/claimant has suffered permanent disability on account of accident, as there was whole in the neck and the medical professional from Switcherland has treated him, but yet the Claims Tribunal did not take any effort to get the medical professional examined resulting into just & proper compensation has not been awarded to the claimant and only meager sum of Rs.7,60,470/- has been awarded. 3. Learned Amicus Curiae would submit that in the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Another1 has already held that if the Tribunal is not satisfied with the medical evidence produced by the claimant, it can constitute a Medical Board and refer the claimant to such Medical Board for assessment of the disability. Therefore, the matter be sent to the learned Claims Tribunal to constitute the Medical Board as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Kumar (supra) and reassess the amount of compensation, which is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records minutely. 1 (2011) 1 SCC 343 4 5. The Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Kumar (supra) has held in para 18 as under :- “18. The Tribunal should also act with caution, if it proposed to accept the expert evidence of doctors who did not treat the injured but who give `ready to use' disability certificates, without proper medical assessment. There are several instances of unscrupulous doctors who without treating the injured, readily giving liberal disability certificates to help the claimants. But where the disability certificates are given by duly constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the genuineness of such certificates. The Tribunal may invariably make it a point to require the evidence of the Doctor who treated the injured or who assessed the permanent disability. Mere production of a disability certificate or Discharge Certificate will not be proof of the extent of disability stated therein unless the Doctor who treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent of disability of claimant, is tendered for cross-examination with reference to the certificate. 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 14 local Hospitals/Medical Colleges) and refer the claimant to such Medical Board for assessment of the disability”. 6. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has clearly stated that if the Tribunal is not satisfied with the medical evidence produced by the claimant, it can constitute a Medical Board and refer the claimant to such Medical Board for assessment of the disability. In the instant case, though there is sufficient evidence on record that the claimant has 5 suffered permanent disability, yet the claimant for his medical reasons could not examined the Doctor, but the Claims Tribunal ought to have taken effective steps to get the medical professional examined and to find out the permanent disability suffered by the claimant. 7. Therefore, the matter is remitted to the Claims Tribunal to constitute/ refer the claimant to the medical board and to examine the medical professional and to consider the question of awarding compensation towards permanent disability. However, the compensation already assessed towards other head shall remain intact and the insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation already awarded and to disburse to the claimant within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The original record be sent forthwith along-with the copy of this order to the learned Claims Tribunal and the Claims Tribunal shall decide the matter within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the records. 8. With the aforesaid observation, this appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok