1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1185 of 2018 1 - Jain Pratap Baiga S/o S/o Ram Garij Baiga Aged About 35 Years R/o Chhoti Koni, Thana Koni, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ...........Claimant, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Durga Prasad Soni S/o S/o Bhagwan Das Soni Aged About 33 Years R/o Janakpur District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. ............Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Magic No. C. G. 16/a. 1986. ............Driver., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 1st Floor Rama Tred Center In Front Of Rajeev Plaza Old Bus Stand Tahsila And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ...........Insurer., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 560 of 2018 1 - Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited In Front Of Rama Trade Center, In Front Of Rajeev Plaza, Old Bus Stand, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle Magic No. C.G.16 A 1986), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 2 1 - Jain Pratap Baiga S/o Ram Garij Baiga Aged About 35 Years R/o Chhoti Koni, Thana Koni, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Claimant), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Durga Prasad Soni S/o Bhagwan Das Soni Aged About 33 Years R/o Janakpur, District Koria, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle Magic No. C.G.16 A 1986), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) Ms. Shalini Jangde, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A. L. Singroul, Advocate, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Agrawal, Advocate appearing for their respective parties. Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 22/08/2025 1. Since both appeals are identical and arise from the same impugned order dated 24th of November, 2017 passed in Claim Case No. 346/2016, the appeals have been clubbed, heard together, and are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, MAC No. 1185 of 2018 is treated as the lead case. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 03.06.2013, while driving the offending vehicle, a Magic bearing registration number CG-16/A/1986, under the instructions of respondent No.1 (owner of the said vehicle), he was en route to Kullu. Upon nearing the Kullu Pahadi Mode, an animal suddenly appeared on the road, causing the appellant/claimant to lose control of the vehicle while attempting to avoid a collision, resulting in the vehicle overturning and the 3 appellant falling out, thereby sustaining grievous injuries on his right hand and other parts of the body. A report of the incident was lodged at Police Station Koni, and a final report under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the Indian Penal Code was filed against the driver. The appellant/claimant claimed compensation of Rs. 19,62,000/- under various heads from the owner and the insurer of the vehicle. The respondent No.1, owner of the vehicle, remained ex-parte before the learned Claims Tribunal, whereas respondent No.2, the Oriental Insurance Company, filed its written statement, inter alia, alleging that the vehicle was being driven in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The learned Claims Tribunal, vide impugned award dated 24.11.2017, partly allowed the claim under Section 163-A of the Act, holding that the appellant had sustained grievous injuries, the breach of insurance policy was not established, and awarded compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The appellant/claimant now challenges the award to the extent that it incorrectly held the injuries to be simple, which is contrary to the documentary evidence available on record. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submits that the Wrong Assessment of Disability by the Tribunal - It is respectfully submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in holding that the claimant suffered 80% permanent disability. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pappu Deo Yadav v. 4 Naresh Kumar, 2022 (13) SCC 790 = 2020 ACJ 2695, the percentage of disability must be assessed with reference to the whole body and not merely the affected limb. In the present case, the Tribunal incorrectly treated the disability in the right hand as constituting 80% permanent disability of the whole body, which is contrary to the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Further, the treating doctor was not examined, which is mandatory as held in APSRTC v. Tirupal Reddy, 2005 (12) SCC 189, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the treating doctor must be examined to prove the nature and extent of injury. Violation of Policy Terms: Overloading of Vehicle - The insured vehicle (Magic) bearing registration No. CG-16A/1986 was a commercial goods vehicle with a sitting capacity of only two persons. However, at the time of the accident, seven persons were traveling in the vehicle, which amounts to a clear breach of policy terms. As per para 13 of the impugned award, the offending vehicle was a light motor goods vehicle. Insurance witness Sunil Barwa, in his deposition dated 15.11.2017, clearly stated that the vehicle was insured as a commercial goods vehicle under policy No. 192491/31/2014/652 for the period 04.05.2013 to 03.05.2014. Furthermore, the claimant himself admitted during cross- examination (para 6) that the vehicle was a pickup goods carrier loaded with Mahua sacks and that, including himself, four persons were traveling, of whom three died in the accident. This establishes the unauthorized use of the goods vehicle for passenger carriage, 5 violating the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Absence of Valid and Effective Driving License - The claimant, who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, did not possess a valid and effective driving license to drive a commercial goods vehicle. As per the statement of RTO witness Shivshankar Singh dated 15.11.2017, the driving license issued to the claimant was for LMV (Non-Transport) and Motorcycle with Gear, and not for a commercial goods vehicle. Under Section 14(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, a license for commercial purpose requires a specific endorsement and is valid for three years. In the absence of such endorsement, the claimant was not authorized to drive a commercial goods vehicle. This fact is corroborated by the statement of Insurance Company’s witness Sunil Barwa (paras 3 & 4), and thus, the insurer cannot be held liable for breach of policy. Delay in Filing Appeal and Non-Entitlement to Interest - The claimant has filed Appeal No. MAC 1185/2018 with a delay of 134 days. Therefore, in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lakkamma & Ors. v. Regional Manager, United India Insurance Co., 2021 (20) SCC 797 (para 10), the claimant is not entitled to interest for the delayed period. 4. In view of the above submissions, it is respectfully prayed that this Court may be pleased to allow the present appeal filed by the Insurance Company and set aside or suitably modify the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 6 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant(s) submits that the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal is contrary to the facts and evidence on record and suffers from material legal infirmities. It is further contended that the Tribunal has failed to consider the future prospects of the appellant's income in light of the binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar v. Ashok Kumar & Ors., (2014) 5 SCC 330, and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Ors., (2011) 1 SCC 343, wherein it has been categorically held that future income and loss of earning capacity must be factored in while assessing compensation in injury cases. He further argued that the Tribunal has awarded grossly inadequate compensation under various heads. Specifically, no amount has been awarded towards: Loss of income (claimed Rs. 4,60,800/-), Medical expenses, Future medical treatment, Loss of future earning capacity, Grievous injuries, Loss of amenities, Loss of enjoyment of life, Loss of marital prospects, Assistance and attendant charges. Only Rs. 25,000/- was awarded towards pain and suffering, which is wholly insufficient considering the nature of injuries. Moreover, only a nominal amount has been awarded towards special diet and transportation, despite supporting evidence. 6. It is also submitted that the Tribunal erred in concluding that no fracture was sustained by the appellant. The discharge summary and medical records placed on record clearly indicate that the appellant suffered fractures in the right hand, elbow, and other parts 7 of the body. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal failed to call for relevant medical records or examine the treating doctor, as contemplated under Rule 226 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. This procedural lapse has resulted in denial of fair adjudication and just compensation. Reliance is placed on the judgments in Rekha Jain v. National Insurance Co., (2013) 8 SCC 389 and Jakir Hussein v. Sabir & Ors., (2015) 2 TAC 692 (SC), to emphasize that in cases of permanent disability or grievous injuries, the Courts are duty-bound to ensure adequate and fair compensation for loss of income, future treatment, and loss of enjoyment of life. In view of the above, it is prayed that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal be suitably enhanced. 7. I have heard the esteemed counsel appearing for the parties and examined the documents on record with the highest degree of diligence. 8. Regarding the Insurance Company’s contentions on overloading and invalid driving license, the Tribunal has rightly held that these facts do not absolve the insurer from liability under the circumstances of this case, especially in light of the settled principles protecting the claimant’s right to compensation. Having carefully considered the material on record, no infirmity is found in the impugned award warranting interference. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company is hereby Dismissed. The liability part fastened by the Learned Claims Tribunal is affirmed in all respects. 8 9. With regard to the claimant’s appeal, it is noted that the claim has been filed under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Accordingly, the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-, which is the statutory maximum limit prescribed under Section 163(A) of the Act. In recent judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that while determining compensation, the Tribunal is required to consider various factors including loss of amenities, future medical treatment, loss of income, and other relevant aspects. 10. In light of the settled legal position, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality or perversity in the award passed by the trial Court. The appeal filed by the claimant(s) is thus not required to be interfered with. Since the Tribunal has duly considered all relevant factors and has granted the maximum compensation permissible under the Act, the appeal is accordingly dismissed. 11. As a result, both Appeals filed by the Insurance Company being devoid of merit are Dismissed and the Cross-Objection filed by the claimants is also hereby Dismissed. Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/-Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saxena