Page No.1 2025:CGHC:13245 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 387 of 2020 1 - Rajkumar Asrani S/o Gurmukh Singh Asrani Aged About 55 Years R/o By Caste Sindhi, R/o Ward No. 8, Sadar Bazar, Charama, Tahsil Charama, District Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Tarendra Kumar Naag S/o Kamal Singh Naag Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Dihipara, Ward No. 14, Keshkal, Thana Keshkal, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Dr. B. D. Naag R/o Ekta Nagar, Thana Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Its Branch Manager, Branch Office Shop No. 11, Mandi Complex, Annapurnapara, Thana Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh .. Respondent(s) _________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 20/03/2025 1. Appellant-claimant has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 29.10.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jashpur, District- Jashpur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.16/2019 whereby the Claims Tribunal allowed claim application of claimant in part and awarded NISHA DUBEY Digitally signed by NISHA DUBEY Date: 2025.03.24 10:50:30 +0530 Page No.2 compensation of Rs.1,19,131/- to claimant/appellant along with interest @ 8.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 02.02.2018, appellant was returning home situated in village-Jaisakara after distributing marriage card of his daughter, when he reached near Village Jaisakara on National Highway No.30, respondent No.1, driving his Tata Indigo bearing registration No.C.G. 07 M 7378, rashly and negligently hit appellant and caused accident. In the said accident, appellant sustained multiple injuries including fracture over left leg. He suffered permanent disability to the extent of 19.25% as disability certificate issued by doctor. Appellant filed claim application before the Claims Tribunal claiming Rs.5,63,280/- as compensation inter alia on the ground that, at the time of accident, he was 55 years old, earning Rs.8000/- per month by working as driver, however, after the accident he is unable to do driving work. 3. Non-applicant No.1 & 2 submitted joint reply to claim application and denied the factum of accident with offending car. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, driver of offending vehicle was possessing valid driving license and it was duly insured with non-applicant No.3, therefore, amount of compensation, if any, awarded can be recovered from the non-applicant No.3 Insurance Company. 4. Non-applicant No.3 Insurance Company submitted reply to claim application and denied the fact that appellant suffered injuries in Page No.3 the accident caused by offending vehicle. It was also denied that applicant suffered grievous injuries resulting into permanent disability of 19.25%. It was also denied that appellant was earning Rs.8000/- monthly. On the date of accident, non- applicant No.1 was not possessing valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle and the offending vehicle was being used in violation of the conditions of insurance policy. Since the accident was result of head-on collusion, the principle of contributory negligence would apply. 5. The Claims Tribunal after appreciating pleadings and evidence brought on record by the respective parties has partly allowed claim application by holding that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle; claimant suffered permanent disablement in the said accident, however, there is no loss of income due to disability there was no violation of any condition of insurance policy and accordingly awarded Rs.1,19,131/- as compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant submits that appellant produced disability certificate (Ex.P/7) issued by District Hospital, Kanker in which it has been specifically mentioned that claimant suffered 19.25% permanent disability due to fracture of left Tibia and Fibula bone. Appellant took treatment as indoor patient in Gupta Hospital, Kanker from 2.2.2018 to 6.2.2018 but the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards attendant and loss of earning during treatment period and future loss of income. Dr. Page No.4 Lokesh Dev (AW-2), Member of District Hospital, Kanker, has categorically stated in his statement that appellant suffered 19.25% disability due to fracture injury. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3-Insurance Company supported the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal and submitted that after taking into consideration the entire evidence available on record, Claims Tribunal awarded just compensation and the same cannot be said to be erroneous in any manner. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Appellant was 55 years of age at the time of road accident. From the medical evidence on record it is clear that in the said road accident he suffered fracture in tibia and fibula bone and remained admitted in hospital as indoor patient for a period of about five days. Perusal of disability certificate (Ex.P-7), which is issued by the District Medical Board, K.D. Hospital, Kanker, would show that due to accident appellant suffered disability in his left leg to the extent of 19.25%. As per pleadings and statement of appellant, he was earning by working as driver. Though in pleading appellant has pleaded nature of employment as driver, however, he did not named his employer, number of the vehicle which he use to drive as driver. But had stated that he was sitting part time in hardware shop of his brother. He also stated that at the time of preparation of disability certificate he mentioned his occupation as running hardware shop. Thus, considering the nature of employment of Page No.5 appellant, his evidence, I do not find any error in the finding recorded by Claims Tribunal with regard to loss of income. However, he will be entitle for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income during laid down period. 10.Further, the disability suffered by appellant, which is permanent in nature, would definitely affect his future life as well as his day to day activities, therefore, the appellant is entitled for compensation towards loss of amenities due to injuries / permanent disability. 11.For the foregoing reason, the appeal is allowed in part. It is directed that appellant is further entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income during laid down period, and Rs.25,000/- under the head of loss of amenities in life, in addition to Rs.50,000/- already awarded by the Claims Tribunal vide impugned award. This additional amount of compensation of Rs.35,000/- (10000+25000) shall carry interest @ 8.5% from the date of application till its realization. Now the appellant shall be entitle for total sum of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,54,131/- (Rs.1,19,131/- awarded by Claims Tribunal + Rs.35,000/- additional amount of compensation). Other conditions of award shall remain intact. 12. The impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Nisha