1 2025:CGHC:55708 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 444 of 2018 1 - Monu Sahu S/o Ajit Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Sipahi, Police Chowki Fasterpur, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Offending Vehicle), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vinod Kumar Sahu S/o Balram Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Sipahi, Police Chowki Fasterpur, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Offending Vehicle), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Dilharan Sahu S/o Tek Ram Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Bhatha, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh (Claimant), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2 - National Insurance Company Limited Taha Complex, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Rajesh Nishad S/o Shiv Kumar Nishad Aged About 35 Years R/o Village And Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Accidental Vehicle), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ifco Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited Glaxy Heights, ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 Vayapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Accidental Vehicle), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 231 of 2018 1 - Dilharan Sahu S/o S/o Tekram Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Bhatha Tahsil Lormi District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. .................. (Claimant)., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Monu Sahu S/o S/o Ajeet Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Sipahi Police Chowki, Fastakpur Tahsil And District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. .....................(Driver). (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C. G. 09/j. B./ 3462)., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vinod Kumar Sahu S/o S/o Balram Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Vilalge Sipahi Police Chowki Fastakpur, Tahsil And District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ..............(Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C. G. 09/j. B./3462 ................(Owner)., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3 - The National Insurance Company Limited, Taha Complex Byapar Vihar Road Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ..............(Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C.G. 09/j. B./ 3462). ...........(Insurer)., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Rajesh Nishad S/o S/o Shiv Kumar Nishad Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Lormi Tahsil Lormi District- Mungeli, Chhatisgarh. ................(Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C.G. 09/ J. B./ 3462). ...............(Owner)., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3 5 - Ifco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited, Galaxy Heights Byapar Vihar Road Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ................(Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C. G. 28/ B./ 6086). ............. (Insurer)., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Diver & Owner : Mr. Praveen Dhhurandhar, Advocate For Claimant(s) : Ms. Shalini Jangde, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A. L. Singroul, Advocate For National Insurance Company(s) : Mr. B. N. Nande, Advocate For Iffco Tokio : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board (14.11.2025) 1. Since the factual matrix and the core issues involved in both appeals are identical and arise from the same impugned order dated 05.12.2017 passed in Claim Case No. 34/2016, the appeals have been clubbed, heard together, and are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, MAC No. 444 of 2018 is treated as the lead case. 2. The facts, in brief, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that on 17.04.2017, at about 10:00 a.m., while the claimants were travelling with his friend on his motorcycle and route to Village Setranga, their vehicle was hit by the offending motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-09 JB-3462, which was allegedly being driven in a rash and negligent manner by appellant No.1, the driver, and owned by appellant 4 No.2, with respondent No.2 as its insurer; it was further averred that the other motorcycle involved in the accident bearing registration No. CG- 28 B-6086 and was owned and insured respectively by respondent Nos.3 and 4. The claimant/Dilharan Sahu pleaded that he sustained grievous injuries to his right leg, underwent treatment at hospitals in Mungeli and Bilaspur, and subsequently required an operation; he also asserted that an offence was registered against appellant No.1 and that, being a student, he was entitled to compensation of Rs. 11,50,000/-. Appellant No.1, in his written statement, denied the allegations, asserted contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, and contended that the claimant had admitted negligence during the criminal proceedings initiated on appellant No.1’s report; he also disputed the quantum of compensation as excessive. The insurers of both vehicles similarly denied liability and pleaded contributory negligence. Upon consideration of the evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal, by award dated 05.12.2017, granted compensation of Rs. 1,18,500/- after attributing 50% contributory negligence to the claimant and exonerated the insurer of the offending motorcycle, leading to the present appeal challenging both liability and quantum. 3. Learned counsel for the Driver and Owner of the offending vehicle submits that the the impugned award dated 05.12.2017 (Annexure A-1) is bad in law, illegal, and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, inasmuch as the learned Claims Tribunal, while fastening liability upon the appellants and exonerating respondent No.2/National Insurance Company (the insurer), failed to consider that the insurer had 5 not pleaded the defence of absence of a valid driving licence in its written statement, rendering the exoneration wholly unsustainable; further, the Tribunal erred in not drawing an adverse inference against the insurer for its failure to examine any RTO authority to prove the alleged absence of licence and in not applying the settled principle of “pay and recover.” It is further submitted that although the Tribunal rightly recorded a finding of contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, it erred in restricting such negligence to 50% when, on the evidence available, it ought to have been assessed at 75%. The Tribunal also correctly held that permanent disability was not proved in the absence of medical testimony; however, it failed to properly appreciate the documents exhibited by the appellants and proceeded to award medical expenses on the higher side, including an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- without adequate supporting documents or substantive evidence, thereby causing grave prejudice to the appellants. 4. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the impugned award is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record, as the Learned Claims Tribunal failed to properly appreciate that an offence under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the IPC, Crime No. 192/2016, was registered against respondent No.1, which itself establishes that the claimant sustained grievous injuries; the Tribunal’s findings with respect to 50% contributory negligence and the exoneration of the insurance company are wholly perverse, unsupported by any evidence, and liable to be set aside in view of the law laid down in Minu Rout v. Satya Pradyumna Mahapatra , 2013 AIR SCW 5375, Jiju Kuruvila v. 6 Kunjujamma Mohan , (2013) 9 SCC 166, and Usha Rajkhowa v. Paramount Industries , (2009) 14 SCC 71 . It is further submitted that the Tribunal committed a grave error in holding that no fracture was proved, despite the discharge ticket on record clearly evidencing grievous injuries to the claimant’s right leg and other parts of the body; similarly, the assessment of the claimant’s income at ‘nil’ per month is erroneous, as it ought to have been reasonably assessed at Rs. 5,000 per month in light of the principles laid down in Sanjay Kumar v. Ashok Kumar , (2014) 5 SCC 330 . The Tribunal also erred in disbelieving the medical bills produced by the claimant and in failing to acknowledge that he was entitled to compensation under the heads of medical expenses, loss of income, and pain and suffering, all of which stand supported by the evidence on record. The overall findings of the Tribunal are therefore perverse, unsupported by material evidence, and liable to be set aside, and the claimant ought to have been awarded just and proper compensation under all permissible heads, together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum instead of the 9% per annum erroneously awarded. 5. The respondent–insurance companies respectfully submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned award and correctly fastened liability upon the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, as the findings are fully supported by the pleadings, evidence, and statutory provisions. It is submitted that the Tribunal, upon proper appreciation of the material on record, rightly concluded that the appellant–driver was negligent and that the insurer stood validly 7 exonerated in view of the breach of policy conditions. The Tribunal’s assessment of the quantum of compensation, is based on sound reasoning and requires no interference, the award having been passed strictly in accordance with law and the evidence adduced by the parties. 6. I Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record with utmost circumspection. 7. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 8. Having carefully examined the entire evidence on record and the rival arguments advanced, this Court finds that the findings of the learned Claims Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of the pleadings, oral testimony and documentary evidence. The Tribunal has rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of appellant–driver Monu Sahu and that the claimant suffered grievous injuries as a direct consequence thereof. The Tribunal’s assessment of contributory negligence at 50% is supported by the evidence, particularly the spot-map, FIR, charge-sheet, and testimonies of the witnesses. The appellant has failed to place any cogent material to justify a higher apportionment of negligence on the claimant. No perversity or illegality is found in this finding. 8 9. As regards the liability of the insurer, this Court finds no error in the Tribunal’s conclusion exonerating the insurance company. The Tribunal has correctly observed that the insurer successfully established breach of policy conditions, and in the absence of a valid driving licence, the principle of "pay and recover" does not automatically apply unless specifically pleaded and proved. The appellants have failed to show that the insurer was under any statutory obligation to indemnify them in the present facts. The exoneration of the insurer, therefore, calls for no interference. 10. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hare Krushna Mahanta vs. Himadari Sahu & Another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 262 has observed as under:- “9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is borne from the record that the Claimant-Appellant had agreed on the additional consolidated sum granted by the High Court. It is imperative for this Court, however, to reiterate that despite such consent, the objective when granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is to ensure just and fair compensation is paid to the aggrieved party. This came to be reiterated by this 9 Court recently in Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto reported in (2023) 1 SCC 204, wherein it was observed:” "17. The Tribunal/Court ought to award "just" compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the claim petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount." 12. On consideration of the medical bills, it is observed that although certain corrections appear in Ex. A/78 and the calculation of expenses in Ex. A/32 is not entirely clear, the bills themselves stand duly proved. A perusal of Ex. A/78 shows that the total bill amount is Rs. 82,150/-, and the corrections made pertain only to the advance payment and the balance payable; there is no alteration in the total bill amount that would render the document doubtful. With respect to Ex. A/32, being an OPD slip duly sealed and signed by the concerned hospital authority, the absence of a detailed account of expenses does not warrant its rejection, particularly keeping in view the modest claim of Rs. 20,000/-. Furthermore, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal awarded an unduly low amount under the heads of future treatment, special diet, and attendant charges. Accordingly, an additional sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards future treatment, Rs. 6,000/- towards special diet, and Rs. 7,000/- towards attendant charges is hereby granted over and above the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. 10 Sn. Heads Calculation 1. Awarded Passed by the Tribunal Rs.1,18,500/- 2. Future Treatment Rs.10,000/- 3. Special Diet Rs.6,000/- 4. For Attendant Rs.7,000/- Total Rs.1,41,500/- 13. Accordingly, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs.1,41,500/- from Rs.1,18,500/-. Thus, there is an enhancement of Rs.23,000/-, which shall carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of claim petition till realization. 13. As a result, MAC No.444/2018 is hereby dismissed and the appeal filed by the claimant MAC No.231 of 2018 is allowed in part. The award dated 05.12.2017 is modified to the extent indicated above. Rest of the terms and conditions of the Tribunal’s award remain intact. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saxena