1 2025:CGHC:60551 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 31 of 2024 1 - The New India Assurance Company Limited (Wrongly Mentioned Insurance), By Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, In-Front Of Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) Through Authorized Signatory Manager, T.P. Claim Hub Office, Bilaspur (C.G.) (N.A. No.3) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ankush Singh Thakur S/o Raja Singh Thakur Aged About 21 Years R/o Of Dindayal Colony, Mangla P.S. Civil Line Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Claimant) 2 - Jitendra Kumar Tiwari S/o Chedilal Tiwari Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Hardi, P.O. Sirali, Tehsil Shakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Presently Residing At Beltikri, Basahar, P.S. Deepika, District Korba (C.G.) (Driver) (N.A. 1) 3 - Vijay Kumar Jha S/o Kamalkant Jha Aged About 54 Years R/o A-31, Power City Jamunipali, P.S. Darri, District Korba (C.G.) (Owner) (N.A.2) ... Respondent(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant/ Insurance Company: Shri B.N. Nande, Advocate. For Claimant : Shri Atul Kesharwani, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12.12.2025 1. This is an admitted appeal. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. NIRMALA RAO 2 3. The Insurance Company has challenged the quantum part assailing the award passed by the learned Tenth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 800 of 2021 dated 11.8.2023 whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.10,65,628/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum on account of injuries sustained by claimant – Ankush Singh Thakur. 4. The facts, in brief, are that on 2.6.2019 at about 10:00 pm, the motorcycle of the claimant was dashed by Trailer bearing registration No.C.G.12 AU 9769, resultantly, he sustained multiple injuries including dislocation and multiple fractures of the thigh bone of his right leg. According to the pleadings, the claimant was operated twice and the claimant filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was also pleaded that at the time of accident, his age was 21 years and earning Rs.18,000/- per month. He claimed compensation of Rs.31,05,000/-. The driver and owner as well as the Insurance Company filed their reply and denied the averments made in the claim application. The learned Tribunal framed issues, parties led their evidence and thereafter, an award was passed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/ Insurance Company would submit that the disability certificate to the extent of 40% was issued by the Medical Board and it was proved by Dr. Sreyansh Parakh (PW-3). He would contend that according to the disability certificate Ex. P/18 and the statement of the doctor, it is clear that the disability was temporary in nature for a period of three years only but the learned Tribunal erroneously treated it as permanent and assessed the income accordingly. He would pray for modification of the award. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant would oppose the 3 submissions made by counsel for the Insurance Company. He would submit that the claimant sustained grievous injuries and underwent two surgeries. He would contend that the Medical Board initially assessed permanent disability to the extent of 40%. He would contend that after the expiry of three years, the claimant was again examined by the Medical Board, which certified the disability as permanent in nature. He would contend that the disability certificate was issued by the Competent Authority on 9.2.2024 and same has been placed on record alongwith an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. He would pray to allow this application and dismiss the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Considering the fact that the claimant was subsequently examined by the Medical Board and a proper certificate has been issued, I.A. No.4 of 2025, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC is hereby allowed. 9. Taking into consideration the subsequent disability certificate issued in favour of the claimant and the nature of injuries sustained, in my opinion, the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the disability to the extent of 40% and awarded compensation accordingly. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi