1 2025:CGHC:59466 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1840 of 2019 1 - Ankur Agrawal Alia Ankur Zindal S/o Bhagwansay Zindal Aged About 28 Years R/o Bazar Chowk, Silyari Post Office Silyari, Thana Darsiwa, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Rajeev Kumar Singh S/o Haribaksh Singh, Through Akhraj Garage, Tilda, Thana - Navera, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Driver Defendant No. 1), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Sawarnlata Jain W/o Vimal Kumar Jain R/o House No. 135, Near Anand Takies, Sai Plaza, New Bombay Market, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner / Defendant No. 2)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - New India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, (Division No. 2), Division Jeevan Bema Office Pandari, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Vehicla No. Cg 04 J 9851) (Insurance Company / Defendant No. 3)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Shri Karunendra Narayan Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Shristi Upadhyay, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. NIRMALA RAO 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08.12.2025 1. The claimant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of compensation challenging the award passed by the learned Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur in Claim Case No.525 of 2014 dated 27.6.2019, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.5,25,270/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum on account of injuries sustained by the claimant. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 24.1.2014 at about 3:00 pm, near Sonu-Monu Dhaba, Siltara, the driver of the offending Truck bearing registration No.C.G. 04 J 9851 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed against an Auto bearing registration No.C.G. 04 JC 8615. The claimant was a passenger in that Auto and he sustained grievous injuries over left leg, right hand and back bone. The claimant filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein he pleaded that at the time of accident he was aged about 24 years and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He claimed a sum of Rs.37,92,000/-. The driver of the offending vehicle was proceeded ex parte. The owner of the vehicle filed a reply and pleaded that the driver of the Auto was negligent in driving the vehicle. He further pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle had valid and effective driving license and that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company filed its reply and denied the contents of the claim petition. Learned Tribunal framed issues, parties led their evidence and thereafter, an award was passed. 3 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the disability certificate was issued by Dr. A.A. Saifi (AW-4) to the extent of 25% on account of injuries sustained over legs and hip vide Ex.P/223. He would contend that the said certificate was issued according to manual of orthopedic book. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has not considered the disability certificate which was issued by a medical practitioner and the certificate was proved before the learned Tribunal. He would contend that the learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month, which is on lower side. He would contend that on conventional heads, the learned Tribunal has granted a meagre amount. He would pray to enhance the compensation. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellants. They would submit that the disability certificate was issued by a single doctor, namely Dr. A.A. Saifi (AW-4). They would submit that the claimant never approached the medical board for issuance of a disability certificate and the certificate Ex.P/223, issued by Dr. A.A. Saifi (AW-4) were not competent in law to establish disability, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly ignored it. They would contend that the claimant remained hospitalized for 23 days and he has been compensated accordingly by the learned Tribunal. They would submit that on conventional heads, the learned Tribunal has awarded proper compensation and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Learned Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.3,65,270/- for medical expenses, Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.60,000/- for loss 4 of income, Rs.20,000/- for special diet and Rs.30,000/- for conveyance and attendant charges. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Kumar Versus Ajay Kumar And Another, 2011 (1) SCC 343 while dealing with a similar issue, held as under :- “18. The Tribunal should also act with caution, if it proposed to accept the expert evidence of doctors who did not treat the injured but who give `ready to use' disability certificates, without proper medical assessment. There are several instances of unscrupulous doctors who without treating the injured, readily giving liberal disability certificates to help the claimants. But where the disability certificates are given by duly constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the genuineness of such certificates. The Tribunal may invariably make it a point to require the evidence of the Doctor who treated the injured or who assessed the permanent disability. Mere production of a disability certificate or Discharge Certificate will not be proof of the extent of disability stated therein unless the Doctor who treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent of disability of claimant, is tendered for cross- examination with reference to the certificate. If the Tribunal is not satisfied with the medical evidence produced by the claimant, it can constitute a Medical Board (from a panel maintained by it in consultation with reputed local Hospitals/Medical Colleges) and refer the claimant to such Medical Board for assessment of the disability. ” 7. In the present case, the claimant sustained injuries over right leg, hip and over back bone. He was initially treated by Dr. Sunil Khemka. Dr. Sunil Khemka has stated that the claimant was discharged when he became fit and thereafter, the claimant approached Dr. A.A. Saifi, who issued the disability certificate (Ex.P/2 & P/3) to the extent of 25%. Though Dr. A.A. Saifi, is an orthopedic specialist but he was not competent to issue a disability certificate. The claimant should have 5 approached the medical board. Further, there was contradictions in the statement of Dr. A.A. Saifi, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly ignored the disability certificate issued by Dr. A.A. Saifi (AW-4) in favour of the claimant and the claimant is not entitled to claim compensation on the basis of the disability certificate Ex.P/2 to 3. 8. The claimant submitted medical bills incurred in treatment to the tune of Rs.3,65,270/- and the learned Tribunal has honoured all those bills. The learned Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.60,000/- for loss of income, Rs.20,000/- for special diet and Rs.30,000/- for conveyance and attendant charges. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal appears to be just and proper and I do not find any good ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi