1 CGHC010142742019 2026:CGHC:31498 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 963 of 2019 Soumya Shriwas S/o Surndra Kumar Shriwas Aged About 5 Years Being Minor She Is Represented By Her Natural Guardian Father Surendra Ku. Shriwas, S/o Shivbalak Shriwas, R/o Bandhakhar, P.S.- Pali, District-Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Sayyed Mohammad Sohail S/o Sayyed Md. Waqar Afzal Aged About 19 Years R/o Geetanjali City Phase No.2, Qtr. No.62, Sarkanda, P.S.- Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sayyed Md. Waqar Afzal R/o Qtr. No.62 Sarkanda, P.S. Sarkanda District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Branch Manager, Sada Complex, T.P. Nagar, Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Claimant : Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate For Insurance Company : Mohd. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 23.07.2026 1. Heard on IA No.02, which is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the cross-objection by the respondent No.03. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. 3. Delay of 50 days in filing the cross-objection is hereby condoned. SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN 2 4. With the consent of the parties, heard finally. 5. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation by challenging award dated 28.02.2019, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.3,14,333/- alongwith 7% interest PA as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident took place on 30.12.2016 and the liability to pay the said compensation has been imposed upon the Insurance Company. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned claims tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation under the facts of the present case. He vehemently argued that as per the statement of Dr. Ghanshyam Diwan (Witness-2) the claimant suffered temporary disability to the extent of 90% vide disability certificate (Ex.P/9), however, in cross-examination though he confirmed permanent disability of the claimant to the extent of 36%, but in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of M. Paramesh v. VRL Logistics Ltd. and another 1 for the purpose of functional disability it ought to have been taken 90%, as claimant’s right hand and right leg both were paralyzed and he was not able to walk. As such, the learned Claims tribunal is absolutely unjustified in awarding less amount of compensation, which needs to be enhanced suitably. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the impugned award by submitting that just and proper 1 2026 SCC Online SC 1188 3 compensation has been awarded, which need not to be interfered with by this Court. Further, learned counsel on his cross-objection submits that the disability certificate of the claimant Ex.P/9 has neither been issued by the treating doctor nor the same has been issued by the district medical board duly constituted under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and, therefore, the same is not reliable document. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. Cross-objection filed by the respondent-Insurance Company: 9. The only plea that has been taken by respondent- Insurance Company in their cross-objection is that the disability certificate of the claimant Ex.P/9 has neither been issued by the treating doctor nor the same has been issued by the district medical board duly constituted under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and, therefore, the same cannot be relied upon. However, a careful perusal of the record would show that no question has been asked from Dr. Ghanshyam Diwan (Witness- 2) that whether he was competent to issue the disability certificate or not. Even otherwise, the said disability certificate has been issued by District Hospital, Korba under the signature of Dr. Ghanshyam Diwan being authorized signatory of the same. As such, for the first time before 4 this Court, in cross-objection, the respondent Insurance Company is questioning the validity of the disability certificate of the claimant, which cannot be allowed in this appeal at this stage. Merely because the disability certificate has not been issued by the duly constituted medical board, the same cannot be overlooked that too when the same has been issued by District Hospital, Korba under the signature of Dr. Ghanshyam Diwan being authorized signatory of the same (See: G. Gnanam @ Gnanamoorthy v. Metropolitan Transport Corporation 2 [Para-2]). As such, in the considered opinion of this Court the cross- objection filed by the respondent- Insurance Company is liable to be rejected. Appeal of the claimant seeking enhancement: 10. It is the plea of the claimant that though in cross-examination the doctor has confirmed permanent disability of the claimant to the extent of 36%, but in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of M. Paramesh (supra), for the purpose of functional disability it ought to have been taken 90% and thereby the amount of compensation is liable to be enhanced. 11. The Supreme Court in the matter of M. Paramesh (supra) has held as under: “22. From the above observations in Raj Kumar (supra), it becomes crystal clear that through the physical disability may be assessed at a particular percentage, the functional disability affecting earning capacity may, depending upon the nature of avocation carried on by the injured, be assessed at a higher percentage including 100%. the assessment of compensation in cases of permanent disability cannot be undertaken by mechanically applying 2 (2009) 2 SCC 71 5 the percentage of physical disability as the percentage of economic loss.” 12. In the case at hand, though Dr. Ghanshaym Diwan (Witness-2) has clearly stated that the claimant suffered temporary disability to the extent of 90%, as his right hand and right leg has been paralyzed and he is not able to walk and talk, but in the cross-examination, he has stated that the claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 36%. However, in light of the above-mentioned dicta of the Supreme Court in M. Paramesh (supra) for the purpose of functional disability affecting earning capacity, it ought to be taken to the extent of 100%. As such, the contention of the claimant that though as per Dr. Ghanshyam Diwan the claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 36%, but for the purpose of functional disability affecting earning capacity, it ought to be taken to the extent of 90% finds support and same is liable to be accepted and to that extend the impugned award is liable to be modified/enhanced. 13. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income Nil Rs.6648/- x 12 = Rs.79,776/- 2. Future Prospect Nil (+) 40% (i.e. Rs.31,910) = Rs.1,11,686/- 3. Multiplier Nil X 18 = 6 Rs.20,10,348/- 4. Permanent Disability NIL 90% = Rs.18,09,313/- 5. Total Loss of future income Nil Rs.18,09,313/- 6. Medical Expenses Rs.2,84,333/- Rs.2,84,333/- 7. Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/- Rs.3,00,000/- 8. Loss of amenities of life NIL Rs.1,00,000/- 9. Special Diet & transportation NIL Rs.1,00,000/- Total Rs.3,14,333/- Rs.25,93,646/- 14. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.3,14,333/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.25,93,646/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.3,14,333/-, the appellant is held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.22,79,313/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of claim application before the claims tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 15. Accordingly, the cross-objection filed by the respondent No.03 is hereby rejected and the appeal of the claimant is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. sd/- (Sanjay K Agrawal) Judge s@if