1 2025:CGHC:54428 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 280 of 2020  Ayyub Baig Mirza S/o Late Ismail Baig Mirza Aged About 39 Years R/o Dharsiwa Ward No. 06, Electricity Office Lane, Tehsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Ganga Prasad Patre S/o Firanta Prasad Patre R/o Village - Raita, P.S. Dharsiwa, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Avinash Nihalwani S/o Ashok Nihalwani, Occupation - Vehicle Owner, R/o Vijay Provision Stores, Village - Silyari, P.S. Dharsiwa, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Manager, Branch Officer, Shop No. 412, 413, Fourth Floor, Ravi Bhawan, Jaistambh Chowk, Tehsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 7-11-2025 1) The claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation against the Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.11.10 14:16:24 +0530 2 award passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 248/2018 dated 18.11.2019 whereby Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 44,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum to the appellant on account of injuries sustained by him. 2) Facts of the present cases are that on 10.11.2009, the appellant was riding his motorcycle towards his work place and when he reached near Charonda Basti, the offending vehicle (Hiwa truck) bearing registration No. CG-04-DE-6500 dashed him. In the accident, claimant sustained serious injuries over right leg and other parts of body. The claimant was admitted to Sai Hospital, Siltara where he remained hospitalized from 11.11.2009 till 23.11.2009 and his right leg was operated and rod was inserted. The claimant filed claim case and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,50,000/-. The learned Claims Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and award impugned was passed. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the accident resulted in shortening of right leg by 1 ½ inch and disability certificate (Ex. P/4) issued by Dr. A.A. Saifi (AW/1) to the extent of 40% was placed on record but Claims Tribunal discarded the disability certificate on the ground that there was no permanent loss of efficiency on account of injuries sustained by the claimant. He further submits that claimant was a Fitter and used to earn Rs. 8,500/- per month whereas Claims Tribunal has 3 assessed the notional monthly income of the claimant to be Rs. 3,000/- per month which is on lower side. He contends that Claims Tribunal has awarded meager amounts under conventional heads. He prays to modify the award accordingly. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits the claimant approached Dr. A.A. Saifi in the year 2018 whereas the accident took place on 10.11.2009. She further submits that the disability certificate (Ex. P/4) was not issued by the competent Medical Board, rather it was issued by a private doctor, therefore Claims Tribunal did not consider the same. She contends that claimant failed to submit the relevant medical documents before the Claims Tribunal. She further contends that Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6) Dr. A.A. Saifi (AW/1) has stated that the claimant visited his clinic on 16.2.2018 with complaint of pain on right leg and back. This witness deposed that claimant was advised to undergo X-Ray and MRI, wherein old fracture of tibia and fibula bones and old fracture of spinal cord Bone No. 11 and 12 were found. This witness issued the disability certificate to the extent of 40%. Thus, it is not in dispute that disability certificate was issued in favor of claimant after nine years. Further, claimant could not adduce documentary evidence with regard to the expenses incurred during treatment, 4 therefore no compensation has been awarded in this regard by the Claims Tribunal. 7) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Kumar Versus Ajay Kumar And Another1 while dealing with the similar issue held as under :- 16. The Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered in regard to the injuries and their effect, in particular the extent of permanent disability. Sections 168 and 169 of the Act make it evident that the Tribunal does not function as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit, but as an active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to `hold an enquiry into the claim' for determining the `just compensation'. The Tribunal should therefore take an active role to ascertain the true and correct position so that it can assess the `just compensation'. While dealing with personal injury cases, the Tribunal should preferably equip itself with a Medical Dictionary and a Handbook for evaluation of permanent physical impairment (for example the Manual for Evaluation of Permanent Physical Impairment for Orthopedic Surgeons, prepared by American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons or its Indian equivalent or other authorized texts) for understanding the medical evidence and assessing the physical and functional disability. The Tribunal may also keep in view the first schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 which gives some indication about the extent of permanent disability in different types of injuries, in the case of workmen. 17. If a Doctor giving evidence uses technical medical terms, the Tribunal should instruct him to state in addition, in simple non-medical terms, the nature and the effect of the injury. If a doctor gives evidence about the percentage of permanent disability, the Tribunal has to seek clarification as to whether such percentage of disability is the 1. (2011) 1 SCC 343 5 functional disability with reference to the whole body or whether it is only with reference to a limb. If the percentage of permanent disability is stated with reference to a limb, the Tribunal will have to seek the doctor's opinion as to whether it is possible to deduce the corresponding functional permanent disability with reference to the whole body and if so the percentage. 19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above : (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability). (iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors. 8) It appears that Claims Tribunal has considered the notional monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 3,000/- and awarded Rs. 9,000/- towards loss of earning for period of three months, 6 which appears to be reasonable. Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and suffering which also appears to be reasonable. However, Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards special diet, transportation and attendant charges which appears to be on lower side. 9) Keeping in mind the above discussed facts, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal towards special diet, transportation and attendant charges is hereby enhanced to Rs. 30,000/- 10) In view of the discussion made herein-above, the appeal preferred by the claimant on account of injuries sustained by him is allowed in part. Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.44,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.59,000/-. Hence, the appellant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.15,000/-. The Insurance Company is directed to make payment of additional compensation assessed herein-above with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till its realization within period of 60 days, failing which, the said amount shall carry an interest @ 18% p.a. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a