1 2025:CGHC:36630 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 710 of 2018 Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch Ambikapur, Manendragarh Road, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Insurer) --- Appellant Versus 1 - Nehru Singh S/o Gyan Singh, Aged About 30 Years, working as Shiksha Karmi Grade-I, Teacher Panchayat, R/o Village Sakhouli, Police Station And Tahsil Dhourpur, District Surguja (C.G.). (Claimant) 2 - Imtiyaz Ansari S/o Samsuddin Khan Aged About 40 Years Occupation Vehicle Driver, R/o In The House Of Mohan Jaiswal, Bouripara Nearby Shiv Mandir, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Driver) 3 - Mohan Jaiswal S/o Krishna Ram Jaiswal Aged About 50 Years, Occupation Vehicle Owner, R/o Bouripara, Nearby Shiv Mandir, Ambikapur, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Owner) --- Respondents MAC No. 244 of 2018 Nehru Singh S/o Shri Gyan Singh Aged About 30 Years, Occupation- Shiksha Karmi ( Grade-I), Panchayat Teacher, R/o Village- Sakhauli, P. S. And Tahsil Dhaurpur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.02 16:51:42 +0530 2 Versus 1 - Imtiyaz Ansari S/o Shri Samsuddin Khan, Aged About 40 Years Occupation- Driver, R/o Presently resided C/o Mohan Jaiswal, Bauripara, Near Shivmandir, P.S. and Tahsil Ambikapur distt. Surguja (C.G.),(Driver of Offending Truck No.CG-4-6544). 2 - Mohan Jayaswal, S/o Shri Krishna Ram Jayaswal, Aged About 50 Years Occupation- Vehicle Owner, R/o Bauripara, Near Shiv Mandir, Ambikapur, police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Truck No. Cg.04-6544) 3 - Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance India Company Limited Branch Office, Ambikapur, Manendragarh Road, Police Station And Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Truck No. Cg. -04-6544) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Insurance Company : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate For Claimants : Mr. Utkarsh Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Driver and Owner : Ms. Seema Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 28.07.2025 1. As both the appeals arise out of same accident and common question is involved in it, therefore, they have been clubbed together, heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. 3 2. Challenge in these appeals is to the award dated 05.12.2017 passed by 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.11/2014, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded total amount of compensation of Rs.4,72,446/- with interest @6% per annum from the date of claim application till its realization. 3. MAC No.710/2018 has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the impugned award on the ground that there was breach of policy conditions, as such, Insurance Company be exonerated to satisfy its liability, whereas MAC No.244/2018 has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of amount of compensation. 4. Brief facts relevant for disposal of these appeals, are that the claimant was employed as a Panchayat Teacher (Grade-I) at Government Higher Secondary School, Dhandhapur, Block Rajpur, District Balrampur. On 08.01.2013, while he was traveling with his wife Nirmala Singh on his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-15-CJ-4122 carrying Government mail, he was allegedly hit by a truck bearing registration No.CG-04-6544 (for short, ‘offending vehicle’) driven by non-applicant No. 1 and owned by non-applicant No. 2 near Ghatoria (between Dhandhapur and Khodharon forest). Due to the collision, the wife of the claimant sustained severe injuries and became unconscious. The claimant 4 himself suffered grievous injuries and his one leg was amputated, and the other was fractured, leaving him permanently disabled and unable to walk normally. The claimant claimed that he was forced to remain absent from work and now requires constant assistance. Additionally, his motorcycle was completely damaged. He claimed a total compensation of Rs.24,93,154/- from the non- applicants therein jointly and severally, including medical expenses, loss of income, and other damages. 5. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle have jointly filed written statement before the Claims Tribunal pleading therein that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company, as such the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation would be upon the Insurance Company. 6. The Insurance Company has submitted its reply to claim application and denied the claim while pleading that the appellant has not produced any document with regard to his medical treatment or permanent disability. It was further pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle has not possessed valid and effective driving licence and permit, therefore, there was violation of conditions of insurance policy and as such, Insurance Company was not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 7. On appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, learned Claims Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,72,446/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the 5 date of filing of claim application till its realization and fastened the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the non- applicants therein jointly and severally. 8. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the learned Claims Tribunal committed an error in awarding excessive amount of compensation. He further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has committed a gross error in fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company despite clear evidence indicating that on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a validly renewed driving licence. It has been contended that learned Claims Tribunal further erred in not taking into account the undisputed fact that, on the date of the accident, the offending vehicle did not have a valid permit or fitness certificate. The absence of valid permit and fitness directly contravened the terms of the insurance policy and renders the use of the vehicle on public roads unauthorized. It has been further contended that learned Claims Tribunal committed an error of law in ignoring the documentary evidence relating to the offending vehicle, which clearly demonstrated the lack of compliance with statutory vehicular requirements. It has been submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal has failed to apply the settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, reported in 2011 (1) TAC 785, where the Hon’ble Court has clearly distinguished between physical disability and functional disability 6 and laid down the guiding principles for assessment of compensation in cases of disablement. As such, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company be allowed. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimant opposes the submissions raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company and submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded meagre amount of compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. He further submits that the claimant had suffered severe injuries in the accident, for which, he has hospitalized for some days, as such, he prays for enhancement of the amount of compensation suitably. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the driver and owner supported the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal and submits that after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount of the compensation to the claimant, which does not warrant any interference. 11. I have heard learned counsel appearing for parties and perused the record carefully. 12. This Court shall first deal with the appeal filed by the Insurance Company being MAC No.710/2018. 13. The learned Claims Tribunal, in paragraph 11 of the impugned award, has held that driver and owner had submitted photocopies 7 of the insurance policy, fitness permit, and driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle, which had caused the accident. It was mentioned in the affidavit that the said offending vehicle was insured in the name of Mohan Jaiswal with the Insurance Company for the period from 22.06.2012 to 21.06.2013, which was not denied by the Insurance Company. The driver of the offending vehicle had also submitted a copy of his own driving licence, and there was no denial of the same, thereby proving that, on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle had possessed valid and effective driving licence to driver the offending vehicle as well as on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company. 14. In view of the findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal, particularly in paragraph 11 of the impugned award, and upon due consideration of the material on record, it is evident that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident, and the offending vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company. These facts were duly supported by affidavit and documentary evidence, which remained uncontroverted by the Insurance Company. Hence, no error or illegality is found in the impugned award warranting interference by this Court. 8 15. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company being MAC No.710/2018 stands dismissed, affirming the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 16. The Insurance Company has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) pleading that certain crucial documents, namely the verification reports obtained from the concerned Regional Transport Office (RTO) regarding the driving licence, fitness certificate, and permit of the offending vehicle, could not be produced before the learned Claims Tribunal during the course of trial, as the same were not available with the appellant at that time. The said documents, however, are material for adjudicating the issue of liability, as they established breach of policy conditions by the owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, it is prayed that the said application be allowed to bring these documents on record by way of additional evidence. 17. Considering the matter in its entirety, since the appeal filed by the Insurance Company has been dismissed on merits, the instant application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for taking additional evidence on record does not survive and is accordingly dismissed as a consequence thereof. 18. Now, this Court shall deal with the appeal filed by the claimant being MAC No.244/2018 for enhancement of amount of compensation. 9 19. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence adduced by the claimant, in paragraphs 13 to 20 of the impugned award, held that the claimant had undergone treatment at multiple hospitals, including Holicross Hospital, Ambikapur, Khanduja Hospital, Bilaspur, and Visharad Hospital, Raipur, and incurred verified medical expenses amounting to Rs.3,23,946/-. The Claims Tribunal, however, did not consider certain medicine and travel bills due to lack of proper proof or supporting testimony. The Claims Tribunal further held that the applicant failed to prove his claim regarding loss of salary under 'no work, no pay' due to the absence of departmental documents or testimony. Based on medical evidence, the claimant’s disability was certified at 70%, but functional disability was assessed at 40% considering he continued to perform his duties as a Panchayat Teacher, Grade-I. Additionally, an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards transportation expenses, Rs.50,000/- was awarded towards loss of personal work, Rs.13,500/- towards loss of work to the attendant, Rs.10,000/- towards food and accommodation of the attendant, Rs.10,000/- towards special diet and Rs.50,000/- towards mental and physical suffering due to permanent disability, as such, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.4,72,446/- to the claimant. 20. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of 10 the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 21. Now, this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.4,72,446/- awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 22. Admittedly, in the vehicular accident that occurred on 08.01.2013, the claimant sustained grievous injuries on his person and was assessed with a permanent disability to the extent of 70%, as per the disability certificate (Ex.P/1C). The learned Claims Tribunal, after due consideration of the evidence on record, has assessed the functional disability to the extent of 40%. This Court finds the said assessment to be just and reasonable, and accordingly, the same is hereby affirmed. 23. Insofar as the income of the claimant at the time of accident is concerned, the claimant was working as Panchayat Teacher Grade-I at Government Higher Secondary School, Dhandhapur, District Balrampur, the loss of income of the claimant for a period of 3 months would assess as Rs.1,50,000/-. In addition to the above, the claimant is further entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of amenities in life, Rs.30,000/- towards special diet and Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering. 24. Therefore, the claimant would become entitled for total compensation of Rs.9,52,446/-. After deducting Rs.4,72,446/- as 11 awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.4,80,000/-. 25. In the result, the appeal filed by the claimant being MAC No.244/2018 is partly allowed. The claimant shall be entitled to Rs.4,80,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of enhancement of award till its realization. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain unchanged. 26. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation to the claimants as modified by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. 27. Record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh