1 2026:CGHC:1970 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 879 of 2019  The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager Vishtar Patal Office, Kejriwal Complex, Opposite Ram Mandir, Main Road, Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.---(Res. No.3 ) ... Appellant versus 1. Tileshwar Prasad S/o Sandhari Ram Aged About 31 Years Occupation - Rajmishtri, R/o Village Namadgiri, Thana, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisarh Pin No. 497229.---(Claimant ) 2. Sunil Kumar Gupta S/o Chandra Prasad Gupta Aged About 45 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Old Bujarpara Surajpur, Police Station, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisarh Pin No. 497229.---(Non. Applicant No.1 ) 3. Vijendra Prasad Gupta S/o Chandra Prasad Gupta Aged About 35 Years Occupation Owner Of Vehicle, R/o Old Bajarpara Surajpur, Police Station, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisarh Pin No. 497229.---(Non. Applicant No.2 ) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/Insurance : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate Company For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Vivek Singhal, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : None, though served. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13.01 .2026 1. The Insurance company has challenged the judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur passed in Claim Case No. 10/2018 dated 28.01.2019, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 11,10,000/- with interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum on account of injuries sustained by the claimant/respondent No. 1. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.01.14 14:49:21 +0530 2 2. The facts in brief are that on 16.12.2014 at around 4:30 hours when the claimant was going to village Rajaulipara along with his relation Lal Sai, the driver of the offending pickup bearing registration No. CG 15 AC 2427 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed him, resultantly, he sustained injuries over face, head including fracture of left leg. He remained hospitalized from 06.12.2014 to 22.12.2014. After discharge, he remained in bed for period of three months. The fracture of the left leg resulted in leg shortening (leg length discrepancy) and made him unable to walk properly. He claimed total sum of Rs. 38,25,000/- as compensation. 3. The driver and owner filed reply and denied claim averments. The Insurance Company filed reply and took a plea that the claimant has exaggerated his income. It is further pleaded that three persons were travelling on a motorcycle, which was dashed by the offending vehicle. It is also stated that the claimant does not suffer any disability and the injuries suffered were treatable. The learned Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence, and thereafter, award was passed. 4. Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate would argue that the claimants suffered a fracture of left leg which resulted in shortening of leg. He would contend that the disability certificate was issued by the District Medical Board in a camp organized on 10.10.2017. He would further submit that the extent of disability is not described in the said certificate. Mr. Gulati would submit that one of the members of the medical board, namely, Dr. Sashi Tirkey (Civil Surgeon) was examined who admitted the fact that the extent of disability is not mentioned in the disability certificate (Ex. A/12). He would submit that Dr. Sashi Tirkey clearly stated that the disability certificate was not issued to secure job or for medico-legal purpose. He would submit that the learned Tribunal committed error of law while assessing functional disability of the 3 claimant to the extent of 100% and computing loss of income accordingly. He would pray to modify the award. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Anr. reported in 2010 SCC OnLine SC 1166. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Vivek Singhal, Advocate would oppose. He would support the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Admittedly, the claimant suffered injuries including fracture of left leg which resulted in leg shortening (leg length discrepancy). A disability certificate was issued in a camp by the Medical Board on 10.10.2017 vide Ex. A/12. As pleaded by the claimant in the claim petition, he was a Mason. Claimant in para 9, stated that he studied up to Class – V. 8. AW/2 /Dr. Sashi Tirkey (Civil Surgeon) has stated that the disability certificate was issued on 10.10.2017 in a camp. It is further stated that there was leg shortening (leg length discrepancy) of the claimant, but the extent of disability is not mentioned in the said certificate. In para 3, this witness admitted the fact that the certificate was issued in a camp; therefore, said certificate cannot be used for service or medico-legal purpose. Perusal of Ex. A/12(disability certificate) would reveal that the extent of disability is not mentioned. It is specifically stated that it was a case of leg shortening (leg length discrepancy). The claimant was a labourer/Mason. The claimant examined himself and proved the nature of injury sustained by him. From evidence of the claimant, it is also evident that he is incapable of getting any job etc. as he has passed class 5th only. Due to leg shortening (leg length discrepancy), the claimant became unable to work as a Mason, and therefore, the learned Tribunal assessed 4 the extent of disability 100%. The learned Tribunal considered the income of the claimant Rs. 5,000/- per month, which is in accordance with the minimum wages matrix. The Insurance Company failed to lead evidence to prove the fact that the disability certificate is not proper or the claimant has not suffered disability to the extent of 100%. The learned Tribunal while dealing with the issue has categorically held that on account of injuries sustained, the claimant is not in a position to work as labourer and assessed his functional disability 100% and awarded compensation accordingly for loss of earning. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Kumar (supra), in para 24 and 25 held as under :- “24. In this case, the Tribunal acted on the disability certificate, but the High Court had reservations about its acceptability as it found that the injured had been treated in the Government Hospital in Delhi whereas the disability certificate was issued by a District Hospital in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The reason given by the High Court for rejection may not be sound for two reasons. Firstly though the accident occurred in Delhi and the injured claimant was treated in a Delhi Hospital after the accident, as he hailed from Chirori Mandi in the neighbouring District of Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh, 20 situated on the outskirts of Delhi, he might have continued the treatment in the place where he resided. Secondly the certificate has been issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Ghaziabad, on the assessment made by the Medical Board which also consisted of an Orthopaedic Surgeon. We are therefore of the view that the High Court ought not to have rejected the said disability certificate. 25. The Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the permanent disability of the injured-claimant was 45% and the loss of his future earning capacity was also 45%. The Tribunal overlooked the fact that the disability certificate referred to 45% disability with reference to left lower limb and not in regard to the entire body. The said extent of permanent disability of the limb could not be considered to be the functional disability of the body nor could it be assumed to result in a corresponding 5 extent of loss of earning capacity, as the disability would not have prevented him from carrying on his avocation as a cheese vendor, though it might impede in his smooth functioning. Normally, the absence of clear and sufficient evidence would have necessitated remand of the case for further evidence on this aspect. However, instead of remanding the matter for a finding on this issue, at this distance of time after nearly two decades, on the facts and circumstances, to 21 do complete justice, we propose to assess the permanent functional disability of the body as 25% and the loss of future earning capacity as 20%.” 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Kumar (supra), has held that the Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the permanent disability of the injured claimant was 45% and the loss of future earning capacity was also 45%. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the extent of permanent disability of the limb could not be considered to be the functional disability of the body nor could it be assumed to result in a corresponding extent of loss of earning capacity, but in the instant case, the claimant is a labourer; particularly, a Mason and due to leg shortening he became unable to work as Mason. Leg shortening from an accident can have significant physical, functional and occupational effects on a labourer, impacting his ability to perform physical work. Leg shortening may effect walking patterns and posture. Leg shortening for a labourer, whose work involves prolonged standing, walking on uneven ground, lifting and carrying loads, effects directly into reduced work capacity. The physical limitations often lead to a permanent partial disablement that reduces the individual's earning capacity. Leg shortening may decrease walking for long periods, climbing stairs or ladders, bending, or maintaining stable postures. The Impaired balance and gait stability increase the risk of falls, and thus, a labourer may be deemed permanently unfit for manual labour. The learned Tribunal considered all these facts and assessed functional disability of the 6 claimant of entire body to the extent of 100% and I do not find any good ground to interfere with such finding. On other heads, the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. 11. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant