1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 576 of 2018 1 - Branch Manager H.D.F.C. Ergo Ins. Co. Ltd. Branch Manager 1st Floor, Kh No. 730/02, D-2, P.H.No.22, Ward No.30, Rani Laxmi Bai Nagar, Rama Magneto Mall Near Industries Bank, Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, At Present Chawla Complex, 3rd Floor, Devendra Nagar Road Sai Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Truck Registration No. Cc-04-Jc-1746), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Chitrakant Kurre S/o Ramkishore Kurre Aged About 24 Years R/o Janji Post Janji, Thana Sipat, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Claimant), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Shivnarayan Kanwar S/o Bhanjal Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o Mudapar, Post Kusmunda, District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Truck Registration No. Cc-04-Jc- 1746), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Kjsl Coal And Power Limited Company Gurumukha Tower, Main Road Katora Talab, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Truck Registration No. Cc-04-Jc-1746), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. N. K. Thakur, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 : Mr. Parvez Khan, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 12/11/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 28.10.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 328/2015 whereby an amount of Rs. 2,25,270/- has been awarded in the favour of the claimant of the deceased for the irreparable loss. 2. The brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that the respondent No. 1 (claimant) filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 11,90,000/- on account of injuries sustained in a road accident that occurred on 18.06.2014 near N.T.P.C. Sipat Material Gate. According to the claimant, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were respectively the driver and owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04-JC-1746 (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”), and the present appellant was the insurer of the said vehicle. It was pleaded by the claimant that at the time of the accident, he was travelling on a two-wheeler along with his friend when respondent No. 2, driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the two-wheeler. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries on his right leg and other parts of his body. He was immediately taken to a nearby hospital and subsequently referred to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, for further treatment. The accident was reported to the concerned police station, where Crime No. 131/2014 was registered under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the offending vehicle. The claimant stated that at the time of the accident, he was 24 years old and earning Rs. 6,000/- per month from his profession. On that basis, he claimed a total 3 compensation of Rs. 11,90,500/- under various heads. Notices of the claim petition were issued to all respondents. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (driver and owner) did not appear despite service of notice, and accordingly, the tribunal proceeded ex parte against them. 3. The present appellant (insurer) appeared and filed its written statement denying all material allegations of the claim application. It was contended that the offending vehicle was not involved in the alleged accident and that the claimant himself was responsible for the incident. The appellant also disputed the age, profession, and income of the claimant. After appreciating the evidence and materials placed before it, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal decided the issues in favour of the claimant and against the appellant. 4. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred on 18.06.2014 due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and awarded compensation accordingly. The appellant, however, contends that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record. The FIR was lodged after three days of the alleged accident, i.e., on 21.06.2014, and the reason for the delay was mentioned as “due to treatment.” The appellant further submits that no medical documents relating to treatment dated 18.06.2014 or the days immediately following were produced by the claimant. The Medical Legal Certificate (MLC) was prepared 4 much later, on 13.08.2014, which raises serious doubts regarding the genuineness of the claim. The claimant had alleged that he was admitted to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, for about a month after the accident and was later hospitalized again for further treatment. However, during cross-examination, the claimant admitted that no documents from CIMS Hospital proving such treatment were produced before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, nevertheless, relied on the MLC, which mentioned that the injuries of claimant were detailed in the bed ticket of CIMS Hospital, and therefore inferred that treatment had indeed taken place there before 13.08.2014. The Tribunal also observed that the police investigation confirmed that the accident occurred with the insured vehicle and, since the driver (respondent No. 2) was not examined, drew an adverse inference against the insurer. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned award dated 28.10.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is patently erroneous in law and on facts, and therefore, deserves to be set aside. It is contended that the findings of the learned Tribunal are contrary to the evidence available on record and that the award has been passed without proper appreciation of material facts and documents, resulting in miscarriage of justice. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the offending vehicle was not at all involved in the alleged accident. As per the own version of claimant, the accident took place on 18.06.2014, when the vehicle 5 bearing registration No. CG-04-JC-1746 allegedly dashed against the two-wheeler on which the claimant was travelling. However, the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged only on 21.06.2014, i.e., after a delay of three days, and the only explanation offered for this delay was “due to treatment,” which is vague and unsupported by any contemporaneous medical records. The Tribunal completely ignored this delay and its adverse impact on the credibility of the case of claimant. Learned counsel further submits that despite claiming that the accident occurred on 18.06.2014, the claimant has not produced a single medical document dated 18.06.2014 or any record of immediate treatment following the incident. The Medical Legal Certificate (MLC) was prepared much later, on 13.08.2014, nearly two months after the alleged accident. The claimant alleged that he was admitted in CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur for about a month immediately after the accident and was later re-admitted for further treatment. However, during cross-examination, the claimant candidly admitted that no treatment documents of CIMS Hospital were produced on record. Despite these serious discrepancies, the learned Tribunal erroneously presumed that treatment had taken place at CIMS Hospital before 13.08.2014 merely because the MLC contained a note stating that “injuries are mentioned in bed ticket of CIMS Hospital.” This inference was speculative and unsupported by documentary proof. The Tribunal further relied upon the fact that the FIR was lodged after three days and that the police, after 6 investigation, found the involvement of the insured vehicle. On this basis, and due to the non-appearance of the driver (respondent No. 2), the Tribunal drew an adverse inference against the insurer and fastened liability on the appellant, which is wholly unjustified and contrary to settled principles of law. It is further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have drawn an adverse inference against the claimant for withholding the most material evidence, i.e., the initial treatment papers and contemporaneous medical documents. The claimant’s failure to produce such documents casts a serious doubt on the very occurrence of the accident and the alleged involvement of the insured vehicle. The learned Tribunal, however, erred in shifting the burden onto the appellant and in drawing an adverse inference against the non-appearing driver, which is perverse and unsustainable. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned Tribunal did not conduct a proper and effective inquiry as required under Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal failed to summon or call for relevant hospital records or examine the treating doctors to verify the authenticity of the version of claimant. A proper inquiry would have revealed that the injuries of claimant and medical treatment were not consistent with the accident alleged in the claim petition. The learned Tribunal, therefore, acted contrary to the statutory scheme and principles of fair adjudication. Without prejudice to the above submissions, it is further contended that even assuming the Tribunal was justified in granting 7 compensation, the quantum of compensation awarded is highly excessive and disproportionate to the nature of injuries alleged to have been sustained. The Tribunal failed to correctly assess the evidence relating to disability, loss of income, and future earning capacity. The disability certificate issued by Doctor indicating 30% disability was accepted without any independent corroboration or medical board verification. Thus, the award of compensation is on the higher side and calls for substantial reduction. In view of the above submissions, learned counsel for the appellant prays that the impugned award dated 28.10.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be set aside and the claim petition filed by the respondent No. 1 be dismissed. Alternatively, it is prayed that the matter be remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh adjudication after summoning the relevant witnesses from CIMS Hospital and examining all related medical records to ascertain the truth of the allegations of claimant. The appellant–insurance company further prays to be exonerated from any liability to pay compensation. 6. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 1 – claimant that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is just, proper, and based on due appreciation of evidence on record. The occurrence of the accident dated 18.06.2014 has been duly proved by the FIR, charge-sheet, and other supporting documents, which clearly establish that the offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04-JC-1746 was 8 involved and driven rashly by respondent No.2. The delay in lodging the FIR has been satisfactorily explained as the claimant was under continuous medical treatment for grievous injuries. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the medical evidence, including the disability certificate, and awarded fair compensation. The objections raised by the insurer are baseless, technical, and an afterthought, hence the appeal deserves to be dismissed in limine. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The record clearly reveals that the respondent No.1–claimant sustained grievous injuries in a road accident that occurred on 18.06.2014 near N.T.P.C. Sipat Material Gate involving the vehicle bearing registration No. CG-04-JC-1746. The accident was duly reported to the police, and Crime No.131/2014 was registered under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the said vehicle. After investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet, which established the involvement of the insured vehicle and its driver. The Tribunal, relying on these official documents as well as the testimony of the claimant and medical evidence, rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. 9. The contention of the appellant that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident is wholly untenable. The FIR, charge- sheet, and investigation report are unimpeachable pieces of evidence indicating that the accident occurred with the said 9 vehicle. The mere delay of three days in lodging the FIR, which has been satisfactorily explained as being due to the hospitalization of claimant and treatment for severe injuries, cannot be treated as fatal to the claim. 10. It is a settled position of law that a short delay in filing the FIR in such cases is neither unusual nor sufficient to disbelieve the occurrence of the accident. The argument of the appellant that no medical documents dated 18.06.2014 were produced and that the MLC was prepared later on 13.08.2014 is also without substance. The Tribunal has already considered this aspect and found that the MLC makes reference to the bed ticket of CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, which confirms that the claimant had undergone treatment there prior to 13.08.2014. Moreover, the genuineness of the injuries suffered by the claimant has not been disputed either by medical evidence or by any contrary material produced by the appellant. 11. The Tribunal has also rightly drawn an adverse inference against the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, who chose to remain ex parte despite service of notice. On the other hand, the Insurance Company failed to lead any cogent evidence to establish that the accident was fabricated or that the insured vehicle was falsely implicated. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from any perversity or error of law. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, this Court finds that the 10 award of Rs. 2,25,270/- is reasonable and commensurate with the nature of injuries, period of treatment, and permanent disability suffered by the claimant. The Tribunal has correctly applied the principles laid down under the Motor Vehicles Act and granted just and fair compensation. The amount cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary in any manner. 12. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no illegality, infirmity, or perversity in the impugned award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The findings recorded are based on sound reasoning and supported by evidence. 13. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company stands dismissed as being breft of merit. 14. The amount of compensation, if not already paid, shall be released to the respondent No.1–claimant along with the accrued interest, as directed by the Tribunal, without any further delay. No order as to costs. Sd/- Shayna (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE