1 2026:CGHC:6106 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 29 of 2017 Manager, The New India Insurance Assurance Company Ltd. Division Office First Floor Chouhan Estate, G.E.Road, Supela Bhilai, Chhattisgarh, Through Authorised Signatory, The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office Second Floor, Rama Trade Centre, In Front Of Rajeev Plaza, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ................Insurer/N.A.-3, --- Appellant versus 1 - Umesh Jaiswal S/o Satanand Jaiswal, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Dadhi P.S. Dadhi Tehsil And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh .................Claimant, 2 - Prakasnath Yogi S/o Ramnath Yogi, Aged About 27 Years R/o Sonpuri P.S. And District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh .................Driver, 3 - Nutan Kesri S/o Hemant Kesri, R/o Pipriya District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ................Owner, --- Respondents MAC No. 1747 of 2016 Umesh Jaiswal S/o Shri Satanand Jaiswal, Aged About 34 Years R/o Dadhi, Tahsil Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, Through Special Power Of Attorney Holder- Satanand Jaiswal Father Of The Appellant S/o Shri Sirdari Jaiswal, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Dadhi, Police Station- Dadhi, Tahsil- Bemetara, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, ---Appellant Versus 1 - Prakashnath Yogi S/o Shri Ramnath Yogi, Aged About 29 Years R/o Sonpuri, Police Station And District Kabeerdham, Chhattisgarh ................Driver Of Tata 1109 No. C.G.-09/ B-1105, 2 - Nutan Keshari S/o Shri Hemant Keshari, R/o Pipariya, Police Station- Pipariya, District Kabeerdham, Chhattisgarh ................Owner Of Tata 1109 No. C.G.-09/ B-1105. Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.02.06 16:22:35 +0530 2 3 - The Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, 1st Floor, Chouhan State, G.E.Road Supela, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ................Insurer Of Tata 1109 No. C.G.-09/ B-1105, --- Respondents MAC No.29 of 2017 For Appellant : Shri B.N.Nande, Advocate. For Respondent 1/claimant : Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. For Respondent 2 : None. For Respondent 3 : Shri Ravi Maheshwari, Advocate. MAC No.1747 of 2016 For Appellant : Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. For Respondent 1 : None. For Respondent 2 : Shri Ravi Maheshwari, Advocate. For Respondent 3 : Shri B.N.Nande, Advocate. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Judgment on Board 03/02/2026 1. Since both the aforesaid appeals arise out of same impugned award dated 27.09.2016, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. MAC No. 1747/2016, filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the MV Act), has been preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation and challenging the impugned award dated 27.09.2016 passed in Claim Case No. 17/2015 by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, District Bemetara. By the said award, the Tribunal allowed the claim application and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.20,34,179/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the injuries, including permanent disability, suffered by the claimant in the accident in question, while fastening the liability upon the insurance company, as it failed to prove violation of the policy 3 conditions. 3. MAC No. 29/2017 has also been preferred under Section 173 of the MV Act by the New India Insurance Company Limited seeking exoneration from the liability fastened upon it by the Claims Tribunal vide the same impugned award dated 27.09.2016. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their description before the Tribunal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant in MAC No. 1747/2016 submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, and that the amounts awarded under other conventional heads are also meagre, ignoring the fact that the injured/claimant is not only unable to perform his day-to-day activities but is also incapable of even going to the washroom and is totally dependent upon others. He further submits that it appears that the claimant has suffered 100% permanent disability, which the Tribunal failed to consider, and instead on its own assessed the total compensation without proper medical determination. He next submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Another, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343, has categorically held that if the Tribunal is not satisfied with the medical evidence produced by the claimant, it may constitute a Medical Board and refer the claimant for assessment of disability. Therefore, it is prayed that the matter be remanded to the learned Claims Tribunal with a direction to constitute a Medical Board to assess the extent of permanent disability actually suffered by the claimant on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, in terms of the law laid down in Raj Kumar (supra), and thereafter to reassess the compensation payable under the head of 4 permanent disability as well as under other heads, in the interest of justice. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company in MAC No. 29/2017 submits that although the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company on the date of the accident, but the offending vehicle did not possess a valid permit, fitness certificate, or registration. He further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in recording a finding that the appellant/insurance company failed to prove any breach of the policy conditions. He also submits that 50% of the awarded compensation amount has already been deposited before the claims Tribunal. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent- Nutan Keshari, owner of the offending vehicle, submits that the said vehicle was newly purchased and was duly insured with the respondent/insurance company on the date of the accident; therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the insurer. However, he raises no objection if the matter is remanded to the Claims Tribunal for fresh adjudication. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission made herein-above and gone through the record. 8. Perusal of the impugned award reveals that considering the condition of the appellant/claimant, who is unable to perform any work and is also incapable of earning his livelihood in future, the Tribunal assessed only 50% towards loss of future earning capacity. Further, vide order dated 06.09.2016, while taking the thumb impression of the applicant/claimant on the order sheet, the Tribunal itself observed that the claimant was not in a complete coma, but was unable to function independently, move about, or even speak. Although the 5 appellant/claimant produced medical documents marked as Ex.P-27 to Ex.P-234, evidencing the expenditure incurred during his treatment, but the Tribunal did not make any effort to examine any medical professional or doctor. Instead, in the absence of medical evidence regarding permanent disability, the Tribunal on its own, assessed and awarded compensation as mentioned above. 9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Kumar (supra) has held in para 18 as under:- “18. The Tribunal should also act with caution, if it proposed to accept the expert evidence of doctors who did not treat the injured but who give `ready to use' disability certificates, without proper medical assessment. There are several instances of unscrupulous doctors who without treating the injured, readily giving liberal disability certificates to help the claimants. But where the disability certificates are given by duly constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the genuineness of such certificates. The Tribunal may invariably make it a point to require the evidence of the Doctor who treated the injured or who assessed the permanent disability. Mere production of a disability certificate or Discharge Certificate will not be proof of the extent of disability stated therein unless the Doctor who treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent of disability of claimant, is tendered for cross-examination with reference to the certificate. If the Tribunal is not satisfied with the medical evidence produced by the claimant, it can constitute a Medical Board (from a panel maintained by it in consultation with reputed 14 local Hospitals/Medical Colleges) and refer the claimant to such Medical Board for assessment of the disability.” 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid judgment, has clearly held that if the Tribunal is not satisfied with the medical evidence produced by the claimant, it may constitute a Medical Board and refer the claimant to such Medical Board for assessment of the disability. In the instant case, despite there is noting of the Claims Tribunal on 09.06.2016 indicating that the claimant has suffered severe disability, yet the claimant could not examine the treating doctor. However, the 6 learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken effective steps to secure the examination of a doctor or medical professional so as to ascertain the actual extent of permanent disability suffered by the claimant. 11. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Claims Tribunal to constitute / refer the claimant to the medical board and to examine the medical professional/Doctor and to consider the question of awarding compensation towards permanent disability as also on other conventional heads, after affording a proper opportunity to the appellant/claimant to lead fresh medical evidence regarding the extent of permanent disability. The learned Claims Tribunal is further directed to consider the issue of breach of policy conditions also, after affording sufficient opportunity to the parties in this regard. However, the 50% amount of compensation already deposited by the insurance company shall not be recovered from the claimant, subject to the final outcome of the fresh award to be passed by the Tribunal. The original record be sent forthwith along with a copy of this judgment to the learned Claims Tribunal and the learned Claims Tribunal shall decide the matter expeditiously, preferably on or before 30.06.2026, from the date of receipt of the records. 12. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned Claims Tribunal on 23.02.2026. 13. With the aforesaid observations, the impugned award dated 27.09.2016 is set aside and the appeals are partly allowed. Registrar (J) to send the original record forthwith to the concerned M.A.C.T. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani