1 / 2 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 290 of 2020 AMRIT SINGH versus PRAKASH SONI Order on Board 03/04/2025 Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate for Resp. No. 3. None appeared for Resp. No. 1, though served. Office report shows that the notice sent to Respondent No. 2 (owner of the vehicle) is reported to be unserved. Learned counsel for respective parties submits that the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is fastened upon Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company, which is not disputed. In the above fact, service of notice upon Respondent No. 2 is dispensed with. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2020, application for condonation of delay of 124 days in filing the appeal. The grounds pleaded in the application and the submission made by learned counsel for appellant are opposed PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 2 pwn by learned counsel for Respondent No. 3. On due consideration of the submission of learned counsel for respective parties and the pleadings made in the application, I.A. No. 01/2020 is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Appeal is admitted for hearing. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant has suffered grievous injuries over his both legs, a categorical finding in this regard has been recorded by the Claims Tribunal in paragraph 21 of the impugned award. The accident is dated 01.02.2015. Hence, the appeal be heard finally at motion stage because in the appeal, appellant is seeking enhancement of amount of compensation only on two grounds apart from others that the amount of compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for future treatment is not added for computing total amount of compensation and further no amount of compensation is awarded towards grievous injuries suffered by appellant. With the consent of the parties, case is heard finally. Order passed separately. Signed and dated. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge 1 / 6 2025:CGHC:15627 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M A C No. 290 of 202 0 • Amrit Singh S/o - Pawan Kumar Gond (Now Major) Aged About 20 Years R/o - Near Nandu Garage, Telipara, Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Appellant/ Claimant versus 1. Prakash Soni S/o - Shambhunath Soni Aged About 27 Years R/o - Village Dandgaon, Manjapara, Police Station Udaypur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh (Driver of the Vehicle Bus No. C.G. 15 Ab 9555) 2. Md. Noore Haq S/o - Haji Abdul Haq R/o - Rajdhani Travels Kharsiya Naka, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh, At Present Rajdhani Travels, Shiv Talkies Chowk, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Owner of the Vehicle Bus No. C.G. 15 Ab 9555) 3. Branch Manager Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office -10003 E-8, Ricco Industrial Area, Sitapur, District Jaipur (Rajsthan) Pin 302022, Temporary Address Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office -Plot No. 01, 4th Floor, In Front of Maruti Heights and Sky Auto Mobile, G.E. Road Police Station Amanaka, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, ( Insurer of the Vehicle Bus No. C.G. 15 Ab 9555) --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 03/04/2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 28.06.2019 passed by Learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 558/2015, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 6 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 1,19,000/- as compensation. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 01.02.2015 when the appellant was travelling from Bilaspur to Ambikapur in a bus of Rajdhani Travels bearing number CG 15 AB 9555, at about 3.00 in the night, when bus reached near Kendai Waterfall turn, non-applicant No. 1/ Respondent No. 1/ driver of the bus, drove the bus rashly and negligently due to which, the bus turned turtle. In the said accident the appellant suffered grievous injuries on both legs, hands, head and other parts of the body. A report was lodged in Police Station-Bangon District Korba, against the non- applicant No. 1, for alleged offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Appellant filed an application under Section 166(1) of the Act of 1988 seeking ₹ 18 ,80,000/- as compensation pleading therein that on the date of accident he was about 20 years of age, was an able bodied person was earning ₹ 6,000/- per month from doing the work of labourer and maintaining himself and his family. 4. Non-applicant No. 1/ Respondent No. 1-Driver of bus submitted his reply and denied all the adverse pleadings made in the application. It was further stated that on the date of accident he was driving the bus at a careful speed, as soon as he turned the bus near Madai Waterfall turn, suddenly the wheel belt of the bus broke and the driver lost control of the steering, in spite of that he tried to control the bus, in that attempt the bus overturned. The said accident occurred due to mechanical fault of the vehicle and breaking of the main belt of the front wheel, there was no negligence on the part of non-applicant No. 1. It is further stated that he had a valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident. The 3 / 6 accident occurred due to a mechanical defect in the vehicle, for which non-applicant No. 1 cannot be held responsible and pleaded that the claim application filed against him be rejected. 5. Non-applicant No. 2/ Respondent No. 2/ owner of the bus has not appeared before the Claims Tribunal and no reply has been filed on his behalf therefore he was proceeded ex parte. Liability to satisfy the award is fastened upon Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company, it is not disputed by the counsel for Respondent No. 3, hence, the service of notice upon Respondent No. 2 is dispensed with. 6. Non-applicant No. 3/ Resp. No. 3-Insurance Company in its reply, apart from accepting the undisputed facts, has denied the pleadings made in the application and further stated that the bus was insured by the insurance company under the terms and conditions of the policy, however, which were not followed. On the date of accident, non-applicant no. 1 was not having a valid and effective driving license. After the accident, Non-applicant No. 1 and 2 did not inform about the accident to the insurance company along with all the documents. The appellant lodged the report about the accident with a delay of 161 days after the accident. Therefore, there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and pleaded for dismissal of the claim filed against it. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that appellant suffered grievous injuries due to rash and negligent driving of bus by non-applicant 1. Breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found to be proved. Tribunal holding the non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation amount, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded 4 / 6 ₹ 1,19,000/- as total compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application. 8. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre sum of compensation. He contended that learned Claims Tribunal in paragraph 21 of the impugned award has recorded a categorical finding that the delay occurred in lodging the report of the accident is on account of nature of injury suffered by the appellant and further that when appellant appeared before the Claims Tribunal for recording his evidence he was unable to walk properly without support. It is further recorded that there was injury in both legs and there was grievous injuries on left leg. The said finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal is not put to challenge by the Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company, hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for the amount of compensation for the grievous injury suffered by him and further the amount of compensation which is awarded towards the future medical treatment of ₹ 20,000/- is on lower side in the facts and circumstances of the case which requires to be enhanced and further the said amount awarded ie., 20,000/- is not added while computing the award. ₹ Hence, the impugned award be suitably enhanced. 9. Learned counsel for Respondent 3-Insurance Company vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal considering the entirety of the facts and circumstance of the case and further that the appellant has not examined any doctor nor submitted any medical certificate has awarded just and proper compensation which does not call for any interference of this Court. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. 11. Learned counsel for appellant has made two fold submission before this Court, first that the amount of compensation awarded under the head of 5 / 6 future medical treatment of 20,000/- is not added while computing the total ₹ amount of compensation and that the said amount is meagre amount looking to the nature of injuries suffered by appellant. Second ground is that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation towards grievous injuries suffered by appellant. 12. Perusal of record of appeal, in particular paragraph 16 of the impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal has considered the claim towards compensation for future treatment. The appellant in the claim application has sought compensation of ₹ 3 Lakh towards future medical treatment, the Tribunal has awarded only 20,000/-. In paragraph 21 of the award, learned ₹ Claims Tribunal has considered nature of injuries suffered by appellant on both his legs and the injury of left leg to be of grievous in nature and further that the appellant was unable to walk without support when he appeared for recording of his evidence before the Tribunal. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I am of the view that the Tribunal erred in not adding 20,000/- ₹ while computing total amount of compensation, hence, the appellant is entitled for the said amount. 13. With regard to other submission of learned counsel for appellant that the Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding amount towards the grievous injuries suffered over his left leg, perusal of paragraph 21 of the award would show that the Claims Tribunal upon examining the appellant when he appeared for recording of his evidence found that on the said date also ie., after 4 years of the accident, the injury suffered by the appellant was not cured, the injury over the left leg was grievous in nature and the appellant was unable to walk without any support. There was injuries on both of his legs. The motor accidental injuries as recorded by the Claims Tribunal on both the legs is not challenged by the Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company by way of filing appeal. In the aforementioned facts of the case, considering the nature of 6 / 6 injury suffered by appellant over his left leg and the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal upon looking to the appellant on the date of recording of evidence, even after four years of accident, appellant was unable to walk without support, I find it appropriate to award 50,000/- towards grievous ₹ injuries suffered by him and further the amount of compensation towards future medical treatment is enhanced from ₹ 20,000/- to 30,000/- ₹ 14. For the foregoing reasons, I find it appropriate to recompute the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellant claimant as under. 15. Appellant-claimant is entitled for ₹ 36,000/- towards loss of income, ₹ 40,000/- towards pains and suffering, ₹ 20,000/- towards special diet, ₹10,000/- towards attendant and ₹13,000/- towards transportation and conveyance expenses, as awarded by the Tribunal. In addition to this, appellant-claimant is further entitled for a sum of ₹ 30,000/- towards future medical treatment and ₹ 50,000/- towards grievous injury suffered by him. 16. Now the appellant-claimant shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 1,99,000/- [₹ 36,000 + ₹ 40,000 + 2 ₹ 0,000 + 1 ₹ 0,000 + 13 ₹ ,000 + ₹30 ,000 + ₹ 50,000] instead of ₹ 1,19,000/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount paid to the appellant pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. 17. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn