Order on Board

08 /04/2024

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant / claimant under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’), being aggrieved by award dated 30/03/2019 passed by V Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (CG)

(hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 655/2017.

2. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs.8,05,791/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,27,121/- as compensation to the appellant/claimant on account of the severe injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant in an accident that occurred on 05/07/2017 by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Sumo bearing registration No.CG-16/CB/0304 by respondent No.1 / driven cum owner and insured with the respondent No. 2 / Insurance Company.

3. As per pleadings of the claim application filed under section 166 of the MV Act, on the date 30/03/2019, the appellant along with his friends had gone to Bilaspur by motorcycle, at about 06:30PM evening while returning when they reached near Karra market, at that time, the driver of the offending vehicle dashed the motorcycle of the appellant. As a result he sustained severe injuries on his left leg, and hand were fractured and also on various parts of the body and he was taken to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur. He became permanent disabled, spent huge amount for his treatment and remained in Hospitalization for considerable period of time. FIR was lodged against the driver of the offending vehicle in crime No. 198/17 and offense punishable under sections 279 and 338 IPC was registered. The appellant was a labour, aged about 25 years and was earning Rs.3000/- per month.

Therefore above stated compensation was claimed.

4. The claim application was resisted by the respondents on various grounds including respondent No. 2 / Insurance Company taking a plea that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license, there is a violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

5. Learned Tribunal framed issues and decided the same in favour of the appellant/claimant and awarded the above stated compensation.The learned Tribunal held that the finding with regard to permanent disablement cannot be given in the light of evidence available on record. The Tribunal awarded Rs.2,02,121/- for Medical treatment and Rs.25,000/- on all other admissible heads.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the appellant has filed disability certificate which is marked as Ex. A/60. Doctor was also examined to substantiate this, therefore, the Tribunal erred in not considering the permanent disability. Apart from this he submits that compensation on all other is also on lower side.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 supports the award and submit that finding with regard to rejection of permanent disability is based upon the proper appreciation of evidence and just compensation has been awarded which does not require any interference.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the record.

9. Ex.A/60 is disability certificate which indicates that 44.30% disability is caused to the appellant/claimant on his left leg knee. Dr. Ghanshyam Diwan (AW/3) has also stated about the same. From the evidence on record it appears that the certificate was not issued from the Medical Board. Even otherwise doctor stated that he had not seen the X-ray of the appellant/claimant neither any X-ray was taken at that time of preparation of disability certificate. Based upon these evidence, the learned Tribunal has disbelieved the certificate which appears to be based upon the proper appreciation of evidence.

10. Considering the entire fact and circumstance and from the evidence it is established that the appellant/claimant suffered grievous injuries and remained in Hospitalization for considerable period of time ends of justic