Page No.1 of 4 IN MAC-225-2023 2025:CGHC:48626 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 225 of 2023 [Arising out of award dt. 20.10.2022, passed in Claims Case No.18/2017 (Kamlesh Dhruv v. Bhaiyalal Vishwakarma and others) by the Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gariaband (CG)] Branch Manager Through The New India Assurance Company Limited, Rda Building Bajrang Market, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle Chhota Hathi No. Cg 04-Jd 1913) ... Appellant Versus 1 - Kamlesh Dhruv S/o Ramratan Dhruv Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Khadma, P.S. Chhura, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 2 - Bhaiyalal Vishwakarma S/o Tukaram Vishwakarma Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Kaundkera, Tahsil Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh.....Driver Of Vehicle Chhota Hathi No. Cg-04-Jd1913 3 - Ramprasad Goldar S/o G.Kaliya Godar, Ward No. 20/6 Mana Camp, Raipur, P.S. Mana, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ...Owner Of Vehicle Chhota Hathi No. Cg-04-Jd1913 ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. HP Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. K.K. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 22.09.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant- SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 4 IN MAC-225-2023 Insurance Company challenging the impugned award dt. 20.10.2022, passed in Claim Case No.18/2017 (Kamlesh Dhruv v. Bhaiyalal Vishwakarma and others) by the Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gariaband (CG), whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.8,33,150/- as compensation to the claimant/respondent No.1 herein alongwith interest @ 6% from the date of claim i.e. 08.03.2017 till its actual realization by fastening the liability to pay the same upon the appellant- Insurance Company. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would make two fold submissions: (i) that on the date of accident (i.e. 04.07.2015) the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective fitness to ply the said vehicle and (ii) though the claimant sustained disablement to the extent of 45% in the accident, but without there being any cogent and admissible evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal has taken 100% of the said disability while calculating the amount of compensation (i.e. 45%), which ought to have been taken 25% only and, therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company has wrongly been held liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants. As such, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would support the impugned award and prays for dismissal of the appeal. Page No.3 of 4 IN MAC-225-2023 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. It is the case of the appellant- Insurance Company that the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No.CG-04-DE-1229 was not having valid and effective fitness to ply the same on the date of accident. However, a careful perusal of the record would show that no plea has been taken by the appellant- Insurance Company in their written statement with regard to the same and, even, when they have examined Bhawani Sahu, Legal Officer, to that extent, he also did not utter any word that on the date of accident the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective fitness to ply the same. As such, the said plea has not been proved by the appellant- Insurance company and, therefore, the same has rightly been rejected by the learned Claims Tribunal. It is held accordingly. 6. So far as the second ground which has been raised by the appellant- Insurance Company is concerned, the learned Claims Tribunal has relied upon disability certificate (Ex.P/73), which is proved by Dr.GS Dhruv (PW-02), whereby it is mentioned that the claimant is disabled to the extent of 45%, which is sought to be challenged by the appellant- Insurance company. However, Dr. GS Dhruv in para-03 of his statement has clearly stated that the disability of the claimant is permanent in nature and, on account of which, he cannot perform his routine/daily work. Dr. GS Dhruv has Page No.4 of 4 IN MAC-225-2023 also stated that there is no strength in one hand of the claimant. Furthermore, the claimant has also been examined as PW-01 before the learned Claims Tribunal, who has stated that due to his disability he is unable to perform the work of Crane Operator vis-a- vis unable to earn is daily wage, as during treatment one steel rod has been inserted in his shoulder. As such, on the basis of above evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly relied upon the disability of the claimant to the extent of 45% and has also rightly calculated the amount of compensation awarded to him. It is held accordingly. 7. In that view of the matter, learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely justified in fastening the liability to pay compensation to the claimant upon the appellant- Insurance company. As such, I do not consider it a fit case warranting interference in the impugned award, passed by the learned Claims Tribunal, as the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal, in the considered opinion of this Court, are correct findings of fact based on evidence and same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this appeal. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if