-1- 2025:CGHC:33985 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 423 of 2019 Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Limited India Near Lal Ganga Complex G.E. Road Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Through Authorized Signatory For National Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Birendra Alias Dhirendra S/o Dashrath Aged About 29 Years Caste Sahu, R/o Achhota P.S. Arjuni Dhamtari Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 2 - Tikeshwar S/o Sukalu Aged About 25 Years Caste - Sahu, R/o Sambalpur, P.S. Lalbag Rajnandgaon Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 3 - Smt. Jasvinder Kour W/o Charanjit Singh R/o Nagpur Naka G.E. Road Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Owner) ... Respondent(s) ________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate For Resp No. 1 : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate For Resp. No. 2 & 3 : None appears though served. _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 18/07/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, case is Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.08.05 10:17:22 +0530 -2- heard finally at motion stage. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) is filed by appellant-Insurance company challenging award dated 25.10.2018 passed by learned Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (FTC), Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (CG) in Claim Case No.113 of 2015. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that respondent No.1/claimant filed an application under Sections 140, 166 of the Act of 1988 pleading therein that on 25.04.2013 he was coming back slowly from his side on his motorcycle No.CG05 H 0344 from village Kolihamar after attending the marriage ceremony of his relative. When he reached near Shyamtarai, non-applicant No.1/driver of the vehicle Truck No.CG08//B/3511 (for short “offending vehicle”) suddenly stopped his vehicle on the national highway without any reason due to which applicant collided with the said truck, accident occurred, in which applicant sustained serious injuries as a result of which he suffered permanent disability. At the time of accident applicant was a 27 years old healthy person who was earning Rs.250/- to Rs.300/- per day by working as a porter in tractors before the date of accident and from this income he was maintaining himself and his family. Due to accident, he became incapable of earning any kind of income in the present and future. He is facing physical mental and financial problems due to injuries suffered by him, claimed for total compensation of Rs.15,40,000/- from non-applicants under different heads. 4. In the claim proceedings before the learned Claims Tribunal non- applicants No. 1 & 2 were proceeded ex-parte, no written statement -3- has been filed by them. 5. Non-applicant No.3 in its written statement has resisted the claim, pleaded therein that on the date of accident, non-applicant No.1 was not having valid permit and fitness of offending vehicle. Applicant himself collided with rear side of the truck. Accident happened due to applicant's own fault. On the date of accident, vehicle-truck was being plied in violation of the conditions of insurance policy, hence, claim application against non-applicant No.3 be dismissed. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which applicant/claimant suffered grievous injuries. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found proved, claimant's negligence to the extent of 25% in the accident, held non- applicant No.3/Insurance Company liable to pay 75% of amount of compensation to claimant. Assessing income of the appellant/claimant as Rs.4,524/- per month, calculated amount of compensation under different heads, awarded total compensation of Rs.2,56,709/-. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that this appeal is filed on two grounds. Firstly, that owner of offending vehicle even after service of notice could not produce essential documents like driving licence, fitness and permit of offending vehicle and, therefore, it is proved that on the date of accident offending vehicle was being plied without complying with the conditions of insurance policy. Hence, insurance company will not be liable to satisfy the amount of -4- compensation as awarded by Claims Tribunal. His second contention is that learned learned Claims Tribunal awarded much more amount of compensation than the claimant was entitled for. Referring to para-17 of the impugned award he would argue that learned Claims Tribunal has computed income of claimant as Rs.4524/- per month and had awarded compensation towards loss of income for 40 months and 21 days which is erroneous. There is no evidence to prove that claimant after suffering motor accidental injuries could not able to work for such a long period. Claimant has not suffered any permanent disability but disability certificate which is filed as Ex.P-1 only mentions that the disability is temporary in nature. Nature of injury suffered is also mentioned as fracture of shaft femur segment 40% temporary and even in Ex.P-2 which is subsequent assessment of insured by the medical Board mentions 30% of temporary disability. Claims Tribunal has further assessed loss of income due to temporary disability for the period from 15.10.2016 till August 2019 as Rs.46,823/-. Compensation awarded towards disability is highly excessive and without proper appreciation of evidence. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent –claimant would oppose the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and would submit that learned Claims Tribunal considering disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, awarded just compensation, which does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 10. Perusal of the pleadings made in the claim application would show that -5- claimant in his application stated that after motor accidental injury suffered by him, he became permanently disabled and not in a position to do any work. He was examined by Medical Board initially for first time on 15.10.2016. Medical Board issued disability certificate of 40% mentioning temporary disability. He after completion of 3 years, again appeared before Medical Board and doctor after examining injured/claimant has issued disability certificate of 30% mentioning again 'temporary' . 11. From the aforementioned two documents i.e. disability certificates Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 it is apparent that claimant has not suffered permanent disability over his person, affecting loss of his income. Claimant to prove pleading made in the claim application, examined himself as AW2 and to prove disability certificate, examined Dr. P.C. Thakur as AW1. Dr.P.C. Thakur (AW1) in his deposition has clearly stated that, in both disability certificates there is mention that there are chances of improvement. In his cross-examination, he stated that he has brought register maintained by Medical Board and further that it appears that deceased was suffering with locomotive disability and therefore he was examined by orthopedics Dr. Soni. This witness was not posed any question by claimant about his status of working from date of accident till date of issuance of certificate. Claimant in his evidence has stated that after suffering injury he was admitted in hospital from 25.05.2013 till 09.06.2013. There is no suggestive evidence to show that due to injury suffered by claimant he could not able to work for about 40 months i.e. more than 3 years. Claimant can be entitled for compensation for loss of income during period of -6- treatment. Claimant has not proved as to when nailing and plates have been removed. 12. For the afore-discussed facts I am of the view that Claims Tribunal erred in awarding compensation of Rs.1,84,614/- towards loss of income for a period of 40 months and 21 days which is without any basis and looking to nature of injury, in the opinion of this Court, claimant shall be entitled for loss of income only for period of 8 months which comes to Rs.36,192 (4,524 x 8= 36192). It is ordered accordingly. With respect to disability suffered by claimant of 30% which is mentioned that temporary and therefore award of compensation of Rs.46,823/- does not call for any interference. Award of compensation on other heads also does not call for any interference. 13. For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. Loss of Income for 8 months (4,524 x 8= 36192) : Rs. 36,192 2. Loss of income of 30% : (+) Rs. 46,823 3. Medical Expenses : (+) Rs. 85,101 4 Attendant : (+) Rs. 1,740 5. Special Diet : (+) Rs. 12,000 6. Pains and suffering : (+) Rs. 12,000 Total compensation : Rs. 1,93,856 14.Now the appellant/claimant is awarded total compensation of -7- Rs.1,93,856/-. As the claimant was also found to be contributory negligent in the accident to the extent of 25%, therefore, the claimant would now be entitled to get compensation of Rs. 1,45,392/- (1,93,856 x 75%) instead of Rs.2,56,709/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. 15.Aforementioned amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimant shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Rest of conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.f 2 16.Considering the fact that the claimant is a poor person dependent on his income as porter/loader, it is directed that if compensation paid to claimant is in excess to what is awarded by this Court, no recovery shall be made from the claimant. 17.Appeal is accordingly allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- Sd/-/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen