1 2026:CGHC:19874 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 402 of 2020 1 - Sadhram S/o Garhram Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Chhote Khaira, Police Station Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. Present Address - R/o Village Chorbhatti, Police Station Sarsiwa, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ( Claimant) --- Appellant versus 1 - Vijaynath Tiwari S/o Rajnarayan Tiwari, Aged About 46 Years R/o Kapil Nagar Gurunanak Education Society, Nagpur, Police Station Charipatka Nagpur ( Maharashtra ) ( Driver Of Offending Vehicle Janit Truck No. C.G. 04 - E - 7560), District : Nagpur, Maharashtra 2 - Mohan Singh S/o Shri Balbir Singh, R/o Jassal Lamba Petrol Pump Indore Chowk Nagpur ( Maharashtra ) Present Address - R/o Tatiband Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Owner Of Offending Vehicle Janit Truck No. C.G. 04 - E - 7560) 3 - Insurance Company, National Insurance Company Limited, Branch HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2026.04.30 11:02:55 +0530 2 Office Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Kishore Kumar @ Shanker S/o Ghasiram Banjare, R/o Renjarpara, Sarangarh, Police Station Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ( Driver Of Offending Vehicle Tractor No. C.G. 13-A-3428 And Trolley No. C G - 13 A- 3429), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5 - Harbansh Kumar S/o Shivprasad Ajgalle, R/o Village Chhote Khaira, Police Station Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ( Owner Of Offending Vehicle Tractor No. C.G. 13-A-3428 And Trolley No. C G - 13 A- 3429), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6 - Insurance Company, The New India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Ambedkar Chowk Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 827 of 2020 1 - Insurance Company, National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office - Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company) --- Appellant Versus 1 - Sadhram S/o Gadram Sahu Aged About 33 Years Resident - Chhote Khaira, Thana Sarangarh District Raigarh (C.G.) Present Address At - Chorbhatti, Thana - Sarsinwa, Tahsil - Bilaigarh District - Balodabazar - 3 Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vijaynath Tiwari S/o Rajnarayan Tiwari Aged About 46 Years Address - Kapil Nagar Gurunanak Education Society Nagpur, Thana Charipatka, Nagpur ( Maharashtra) (Driver Of Accidental Vehicle Truck No. C.G. 04 - E - 7560), District : Nagpur, Maharashtra 3 - Mohan Singh S/o Balbeer Singh Address - Jassal Lamba Petrol Pump, Indore Chowk - Nagpur (Maharashtra) Present Address - Tatibandh, Raipur (C.G.) (Owner Of Accidental Vehicle Truck No. C.G. 04 - E - 7560), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Kishore Kumar Alias Shankar S/o Ghasiram Banjare Address Rengerpara, Sarangarh, Thana - Sarangarh, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Accidental Vehicle Tractor No. C.G. 13 - A- 3428 And Trolley No. C.G. 13 - A - 3429), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5 - Harbansh Kumar, S/o Shivprasad Ajgalle , Resident - Chhotekhaira, Thana Sarangarh, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Accidental Vehicle Tractor No. C.G. 13 - A - 3428 And Trolley No. C.G. 13 - A - 3429), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6 - Insurance Company The New India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office - Ambedkar Chowk, Baloda Bazar, District - Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Tractor And Trolley), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) 4 For Appellant/Claimant in MAC/402/2020 : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Appellant/ Insurance Company in MAC/827/2020 : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No. 6 in both the appeals : Mr. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 29.04.2026 1. Since both the appeals have arisen out of a common accident and both of them have been preferred against common award dated 16/01/2020 passed by learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar in Claim Case No. 14/2018, therefore, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. MAC/402/2020 has been preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of compensation whereas MAC/827/2020 has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company against the liability of payment of compensation that has been fastened upon them by the Claims Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant in MAC/402/2020 would submit that the Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 3,000/- which is rather 5 on the lower side and considering that the claimant has suffered 75% of permanent disability on account of the accident, the compensation of Rs. 6,83,107/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is grossly inadequate, as such, it may suitably be enhanced. 4. Learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company in MAC/827/2020 would support the impugned award and submit that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. He would further submit that the accident allegedly occurred on 05/11/2004 whereas the claim application was preferred on 23/01/2018 i.e. with an inordinate delay of 14 years, therefore, in light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Purohit and Company v. Khatoonbee and Anr.1, the claim application filed by the claimant is liable to be rejected in toto. Furthermore, though disability certificate (Ex. P/21) has been filed by the claimant but it has not been proved by any of the Doctors who constituted the Medical Board and issued the said certificate, therefore, in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and Anr.2, the instant appeal filed by 1 2017 AIR (SC) 1612 2 2008 (7) SCC 305 6 the Insurance Company be allowed and the impugned award be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. MAC/827/2020 :- 6. Admittedly, the accident in question occurred on 05/11/2004 whereas the claim application came to be filed by the claimant on 23/01/2018 i.e. with a delay of 14 years. A specific plea regarding delay has also been taken by the Insurance Company in paragraph 4 of their written statement. However, it is evident from the record that no specific issue with regard to limitation or delay was framed by the Claims Tribunal and the said objection has not at all been pressed into service by the Insurance Company. Consequently, learned Claims Tribunal proceeded to consider and decide the claim petition on merits. It is also pertinent to note that at that time, the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were prevailing and no specific period of limitation was prescribed and applicable for filing a claim application under the said Act and it was required to be filed within reasonable time. In such circumstances, the said objection raised by the Insurance Company with regard to 7 delay cannot be entertained at this stage and defeat the purpose of a beneficial legislation. 7. Likewise, the contention raised on behalf of the Insurance Company with respect to the disability certificate (Ex. P/21) not having been proved by the concerned Doctor was also not specifically taken before the Claims Tribunal during the course of inquiry. Neither any serious challenge was made to the said document at the stage of evidence, nor was the issue expressly pressed during final arguments before the Tribunal. Therefore, such a contention cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time before this Court. It is true that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Yudhvir Singh (supra), the disability certificate ought to have been proved by the Doctor concerned, however, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the prolonged treatment undergone by him, the medical documents available on record, and the oral testimony of the claimant which remained uncontroverted, and at this stage, this Court is of the considered opinion that Claims Tribunal is justified in considering the case of the claimant and granting compensation of Rs. 6,83,107/- in his favour which appears to be just and proper and based on evidence available on record. I 8 do not find any perversity or illegality warranting interference in the impugned award. MAC/402/2020 :- 8. A careful perusal of the impugned award would show that learned Claims Tribunal has granted compensation under various heads, namely Rs. 39,607/- for medical bills, Rs. 500/- as attendant’s fee, Rs. 18,000/- as loss of earning for 6 months, Rs. 10,000/- for diet and nutrition, Rs. 10,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 4,05,000/- for loss of future earning capacity, Rs. 2,00,000/- for future treatment and thereby, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 6,83,107/- in favour of the appellant/claimant. 9. Upon due consideration of the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant, the evidence available on record, the disability suffered by him and the principles governing determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable and does not call for any further enhancement. I do not find any merit in this appeal. 9 10. Accordingly, both the appeals are hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet