1 2025:CGHC:54665 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1189 of 2023 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, 1st Floor, Rama Trade Center, Infront Of Rajeev Plaza, Old Bus Stand Chowk, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Vehicle Car No. C.G.-10-A.G.-6444) ... Appellant versus 1 - Amit Mourya S/o Bhupendra Mourya Aged About 23 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Domuhani, Police Station Torwa, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) (Claimant) 2 - Sandeep Singh @ Raja S/o Late Jogendar Singh, Aroda R/o Ward No. 15, Domuhani, Police Station Torwa, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) (Non-Applicant No. 1) (Driver Of Vehicle Car No. C.G.-10-A.G.-6444) 3 - Ravikant Gupta S/o Late Chandramohan Gupta R/o Ward No. 28, Krishna Nagar, Baniyapara, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) (Owner Of Vehicle Car No. C.G.-10-A.G.-6444) ... Respondent(s) HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.11.11 13:06:42 +0530 2 For Appellant : Ms. Swati Agrawal on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocates For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Saurabh Gupta on behalf of Mr. Anand Kumar Gupta, Advocates SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 10.11.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant (Insurance Company) challenging the impugned award dated 14/02/2023 passed by learned 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 379/2021, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 15,05,449/- as compensation to respondent No. 1/claimant for the injuries suffered by him and the liability of payment of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant (Insurance Company). 2. Cross Appeal under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC has also been filed by the respondent No. 1/claimant seeking enhancement of compensation amount. 3 3. Learned counsel for the appellant (Insurance Company) would submit that the accident took place in Bilaspur whereas the medical certificate was issued by the District Medical Board, Janjgir-Champa vide Ex. P/224 in which it has been mentioned that the respondent No. 1/claimant suffered 40% permanent disability, however, it ought to have been issued by the District Medical Board, Bilaspur. Moreover, the respondent No. 1/claimant did not have valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident, as such, the appellant (Insurance Company) is not liable to make payment of compensation. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1/claimant would submit that though the Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant (Insurance Company) but the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side and may suitably be enhanced. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, has clearly recorded a finding that the District Medical Board, Janjgir- 4 Champa has certified vide Exhibit P/224 that respondent No. 1/claimant has suffered 40% permanent disability which has been duly proved by Dr. R.L. Thakur, Orthopedic Surgeon (A.W.-2) who has clearly stated before the Court that after suffering permanent disability to the extent of 40%, the respondent No. 1/claimant has difficulty in running and climbing stairs. As such, the permanent disability certificate (Ex. P/224) issued by the District Medical Board, Janjgir-Champa duly proved by Dr. R.L. Thakur (A.W.-2) is absolutely in accordance with law and there is no requirement of filing a permanent disability certificate of the concerned District Medical Board where the accident took place. 7. So far as the question of valid and effective driving license of the respondent No. 1/claimant is concerned, though the said plea has been raised by the appellant (Insurance Company) but it has not been proved by them by examining any witnesses. As such, I do not find any merit in the appeal of the Insurance Company. 8. Now, coming to the cross-appeal filed by the respondent No. 1/claimant, it is revealed from a careful perusal of the impugned award that the Claims Tribunal has granted Rs. 51,600/- under loss of income, Rs. 2,47,147/- under 5 medical expenses, Rs. 10,000/- for transportation, Rs. 15,000/- for attendant’s fee, Rs. 10,000/- for special diet, Rs. 1,00,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 10,71,702/- for future treatment, thereby, awarding a total sum of Rs. 15,05,449/- as compensation to the respondent No. 1/claimant for the injuries suffered by him, which in my considered opinion, is just and proper and does not require any interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the instant appeal as well as the cross-appeal, being devoid of merits, are liable to be and are hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet