1 2026:CGHC:8610 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1363 of 2025 Panchuram Verma S/o Rameshar Verma Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Shergarh, Police Station and Tahsil Khairgarh, District Khairgarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai, Chhattisgarh (Claimant) ... Appellant versus 1. Shivkumar Pal S/o Jalipa Pal Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Alipur, Post Nisgar, Police Station Sareli, District Raibareli, Uttar Pradesh Presently R/o Village Jewra Sirsa, Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Driver) 2. Suryakant Sao S/o Kedar Prasad Sao Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No. 19, Sirsa Khurd, Tahsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Owner) 3. United India Insurance Company Limited Address- Micro Office, Paras Complex, Gurudwara Road Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Insurer) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge Order on Board 17.02.2026 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “MVA”), assailing the legality, correctness and judicial propriety of the award dated 25.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.02.19 10:51:10 +0530 2 Tribunal, Khairagarh, Civil District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as the “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 56/2023. 2. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs. 30,20,000/-, the learned Claims Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs. 6,51,530/- and held that the appellant had contributed to the accident. Accordingly, 50% of the said amount was deducted and a sum of Rs. 3,25,765/- was awarded as compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident, which occurred on 01.01.2023 due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, a truck bearing registration No. C.G.04 M.P./7945, driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured by respondent No. 3. 3. As per the claim application, the appellant/claimant, along with his two friends, namely Nagesh Thakur and Mohit Nishad, was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-08-AN-8120 and was going to village Bijetala. On the way, the offending vehicle was parked without any indicator at night in a negligent manner, thus, the motorcycle dashed into the offending vehicle. As a result, the appellant sustained severe injuries to his knee and ankle, suffered fractures and received other severe injuries on his person. He was taken to the Primary Health Centre, Ghumka and looking to the nature of his injuries, was referred to the District Hospital, Rajnandgaon, where he remained hospitalized for 06 days. As his condition did not improve, he was admitted to Shankaracharya Hospital, Junwani, Bhilai, where he remained hospitalized from 07.01.2023 to 24.01.2023. Seeking the above-stated compensation, an application under Section 166 of the MVA was filed. 4. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, being the driver and owner, remained ex parte and did not file their written statement. Respondent No. 3 (United India 3 Insurance Company Limited) filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim application and pleaded that three persons were riding on the motorcycle, the accident had occurred on account of the negligence of the driver of the motorcycle, the appellant is responsible for the accident and it is a case of contributory negligence. It was further pleaded that the driver, owner and insurance company of the motorcycle are necessary parties. It has also been pleaded that the driver of the motorcycle did not have any valid permit therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the claim application. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Claims Tribunal framed as many as 07 issues. Except Issue No. 4(B), the rest of the issues were decided in favour of the appellant. The learned Claims Tribunal found that the appellant suffered 10% permanent disability, as per the disability certificate. However, while deciding Issue No. 4(B), it held that there was contributory negligence to the extent of 50% each on the part of the driver of the motorcycle and the driver of the offending truck. Though it assessed the above-stated compensation, it deducted 50% of the amount from the compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the appellant had sustained severe injuries and was under continuous treatment from the date of the accident till the award was passed and thereafter as well. He further submits that after the award was passed, on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he had to undergo a major surgery and his left leg was amputated above the knee and the disability certificate obtained by him has been filed along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. He submits that as the appeal is a continuation of the claim application and the proceedings are summary in 4 nature, the subsequent developments that occurred after the passing of the award may be considered for decision-making in this appeal while allowing the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. He further submits that the amount of compensation is also on the lower side and requires suitable enhancement by this Court. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, opposing the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the findings recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal in all respects appear to be just, reasonable and based upon proper appreciation of the evidence. He further submits that three persons were riding on the motorcycle and naturally they had contributed to causing the accident, thus, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly observed that there is 50% contributory negligence on the part of the appellant. He further submits that the accident had occurred on 01.01.2023 and the documents appended with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. are dated 07.01.2026, after a lapse of about 03 years, therefore, it cannot be said that such disability certificate or such amputation above the knee was on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments of the Claims Tribunal and records therein with utmost circumspection. 9. Firstly, this Court would like to deal with the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. There is no quarrel that an appeal is a continuation of a civil suit. In the case at hand, the accident had occurred on 01.01.2023 and the documents appended with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. include a discharge summary of the same institution where the appellant was admitted after the accident. The 5 disability certificate has also been appended, which goes to show that the appellant has suffered 80% permanent disability and that one leg (OL) is the affected body part. The certificate has been issued by the Civil Hospital, Khairagarh, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.), and it has been issued under the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India. Photographs have also been annexed along with the application (Annexure D/2), which go to show that there is amputation of the appellant’s left leg above the knee. A Unique Disability ID card from the Government of India has also been annexed with the application for taking additional evidence in the appeal. 10. Thus, taking into consideration the fact that motor accident claims are summary in nature and that the Claims Tribunal is duty-bound to assess and award just and reasonable compensation to the claimants, as the case may be and taking into consideration the above-stated facts, this Court is of the opinion that the application may be allowed. However, it is to be seen that the certificate is required to be proved by calling the appropriate witnesses in this regard and the other documents appended are also required to be proved by the appellant in accordance with law. 11. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that, in the interest of justice, the matter deserves to be remanded to the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh, Civil District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.), for fresh decision. 12. Accordingly, the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. is allowed and the matter is remanded to the learned Claims Tribunal for adjudication of the claim application filed by the appellant in accordance with law. While deciding the matter, the learned Tribunal shall take into 6 consideration the disability certificate and other documents filed along with the application. 13. The parties are at liberty to amend their pleadings and to lead additional evidence, including calling appropriate witnesses to prove their respective pleadings in accordance with law. 14. It is made clear that if any amount, in compliance with the award, has been deposited by the insurance company, the same shall not be recovered from the claimant. It is expected that the learned Claims Tribunal shall make all endeavours to decide the claim application preferably within a reasonable period of six months from the next date of hearing. 15. Thus, the impugned order dated 25.02.2025, passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh, Civil District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 56/2023, is hereby set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Claims Tribunal. The issue of contributory negligence shall be decided afresh by the learned Claims Tribunal. The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 10.03.2026. 16. Thus, the present appeal stands partly allowed. 17. Let a copy of this order along with the original records be transmitted to the Claims Tribunal forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Preeti