1 2025:CGHC:58996 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1533 of 2018 1 - National Insurance Company Limited Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional-Office Taha Complex, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Tah. And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh....(Insurer)....(Non-Applicant No.3), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Abhay Kashyap S/o Shri Dineshwar Kasyap Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Father-Dineshwar Kashyap, Aged-34 Years, S/00-Late Bodhuram Kashyap. R/o Mukam And P.O.- Hirri, P.S.- Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.....(Applicnat), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Satyanarayan Kshyap S/o Firturam Kashyap Aged About 28 Years R/o Mukam And P.O. Rogda, P.S. And Tahsil Navagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.....(Driver)....(Non-Applicant No.1), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Director Of Health Service (Officer Incharge) In Front Of Escort Hospital, New Dental College, Near Rajbandha Ground, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Another Address- Raghvendra Kumar Verma S/o Rajendra Kumar Verma (District- Incharge Officer, Eme 102 Mahtari Express), R/o Dewangan Mohalla District- Champa, Chhattisgarh.... (Owner)....(Non-Applicnat No.2), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 behalf of Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : None. MAC No. 1486 of 2018 1 - National Insurance Company Limited Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Taha Complex, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Tah. And Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Kush Kashyap S/o Vyas Kasyap Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Father- Vyas Kashyap, Aged 45 Years, S/o Late Shri Rungu Kashyap, R/o Mukam And P.O. Hirri, Tah. And P.S. Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Satyanarayan Kashyap, S/o Firturam Kashyap, Aged About 28 Years R/o Mukam And P.O. Rogda, P.S. And Tah. Navagarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Director Of Health Service (Officer Incharge), In Front Of Escort Hospital, New Dental College, Near Rajbandha Ground, Raipur Chhattisgarh. Another Address- Raghvendra Kumar Verma S/o Rajendra Kumar Verma (Distt. Incharge Officer, Eme 102 Mahtari Express), R/o Dewangan Mohalla, Champa, Tahsil And P.S. Champa, Distt. Champa Chhattisgarh..........(Owner), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dashrath Gupta, 3 Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : None. MAC No. 1487 of 2018 1 - National Insurance Company Limited Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional-Office Taha Complex, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Tah. And Distt.- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh....(Insurer)......(Non-Applicant No.3), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Prem Kumar Kashyap S/o Late Saheblal Kasyap Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Mother-Smt. Sukrita Kashyap, Aged-35 Years, Wd/o Late Shri Saheblal Kashyap, R/o Mukam And P.O. Hirri, P.S.- Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.....(Applicant), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Satyanarayan Kshyap S/o Firturam Kashyap Aged About 28 Years R/o Mukam And P.O. Rogda, P.S. And Tah.- Navagarh, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh....(Driver).....(Non-Applicant No.1), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Director Of Health Service (Officer-Incharge) In Front Of Escort Hospital, New Dental College, Near Rajbandha Ground, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Another Address- Raghvendra Kumar Verma S/o Rajendra Kumar Verma (Distt. Incharge Officer, Eme 102 Mahtari Express), R/o Dewangan Mohalla, District- Champa, Chhattisgarh..... (Owner).....(Non_applilcant No.2), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dashrath Gupta, 4 Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : None. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 04/12/2025 1. All the appeals are arising out of one accident, in which one award dated 10.5.2018 has been passed. MAC No. 1533/2018, MAC No. 1486/2018 and MAC No. 1487/2018 are insurer’s appeal against the award dated 10.5.2018 passed by the learned 9th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case Nos. 318/2015, 317/2015 and 316/2015 respectively. 2. Brief facts of the cases, are that, the assertion of Respondent No.1 that on 22.10.2014 at about 7:30 p.m., he was travelling from Janjgir to village Pacheda as a pillion rider on a motorcycle driven by Mahendra Kumar Kashyap, when Respondent No.2, driving a Tata Sumo bearing registration No. CG-02-5730 in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the motorcycle, resulting in the death of Mahendra Kumar Kashyap on the spot and causing serious injuries to Prem Kumar Kashyap and other pillion riders; consequently, Respondent No.1 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 12,65,000/- against Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and the appellant–Insurance Company. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, in their separate written statements, denied the allegations and 5 contended that the accident was actually caused by a truck bearing registration No. JH-19A-1890, which had also collided with the vehicle driven by Respondent No.2, and further submitted that the alleged offending vehicle was insured with the appellant, who would be liable in case any compensation was awarded. The appellant–Insurance Company, in its written statement, denied the claim and pleaded that the motorcycle was being driven in violation of law, as the rider had no valid driving licence and was carrying four pillion riders, and further asserted that Respondent No.2 was also not holding a valid and effective driving licence and was driving the offending vehicle without proper documents, thereby breaching the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, on which basis the appellant sought dismissal of the claim petition against it. Upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence, the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,32,115/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization, holding Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the appellant jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the quantum of compensation awarded on the basis of the alleged permanent disability is wholly unsustainable in law, as the disability certificate relied upon by the Tribunal was not issued by a duly constituted Medical Board, but instead by a Medical Officer of the District Hospital, Janjgir, who issued the certificate nearly 6 two years after the alleged incident and without having provided any treatment to the claimant; therefore, the very foundation of the assessment of permanent disability is questionable and the award warrants reconsideration. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded compensation which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably. 5. None for owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly taking into account that the learned Claims Tribunal has duly examined all relevant aspects, including the disability certificate and the supporting evidence adduced before it, as well as the testimony of the doctor who issued the said disability certificate, this Court finds that the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the injured has suffered 40% permanent disability; therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the said finding is well- reasoned and does not warrant any interference. 7 8. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the insurance company is liable to be and accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat