Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Sanjay Kumar S/o
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:36254 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 356 of 2018 1 - Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. 4th Floor, Maruti Heights, G.E.Raod, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Appellant/respondent No.3), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri Chakranand Aged About 10 Years Being A Minor Through His Father Shri Chakranand S/o Shri Netram, Being His Natural Guardian, R/o Village Kotmer, Tehsil Kartala, District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Claimant No.1), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Manoj Kumar S/o Ramashram Pandey Aged About 45 Years R/o Baridih, Godla, Thana Satighoda, District Jamshedpur, Court Road Simdega, Jharkhand (Driver/non-Applicant No.1), Jharkhand
Legal Reasoning
3 - Jasbir Singh S/o Shri Harjeet Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Tata Raipur Roadways, Bhanpuri, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Owner/non-Applicant No.2), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Acharya, Advcoate. 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 25.07.2025 1 Heard on admission. Admit. 2 This is the insurer’s appeal against the award dated 03.05.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba in Claim Case No.17/2014 whereby a compensation of Rs.10,50,500/- with interest @ 08% per annum has been awarded in favour of the Claimants. 3 The facts, in brief, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that on 06.05.2014, the minor applicant Sanjay Kumar, aged about ten years at the time, was standing near Kotmer Ghat along with his friend, route was from Kotmer to Kartala. At approximately that time, a truck bearing registration number CG 04 ZB 5492, being driven in a rash and negligent manner by Respondent No.2, who was coming from Bhaisma, struck the minor Respondent No.1. As a result of the said accident, Sanjay Kumar sustained serious injuries to his head, hand, and right leg. Immediately following the accident, Sanjay was taken to the Community Health Centre, Kartala, for initial treatment. Considering the severity of the injuries, he was subsequently referred and admitted to Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur, for further specialized treatment. It is specifically averred that Sanjay suffered a compound fracture in his right leg below the knee, which was 3 broken into three parts, requiring extensive medical attention and prolonged care. At the time of the accident, the minor Respondent No.1 was a school-going child and actively pursuing his education. Owing to the nature and extent of injuries sustained, he was rendered permanently disabled, which has adversely impacted his ability to perform daily activities and is likely to have long-term repercussions on his educational and overall development. It is submitted that, pursuant to the accident, a report was lodged at Police Station Kartala, upon which a criminal case was registered and legal proceedings were initiated against the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Respondent No.2. 4 It is further submitted that the offending truck was registered in the name of Respondent No.3, who was the owner of the vehicle at the relevant time. Additionally, the said vehicle was duly insured with the present appellant, thus establishing their joint and several liability. The Respondent No.1 has stated that an amount of approximately Rs. 4,00,000/- has already been incurred on medical treatment, and there is a reasonable likelihood of incurring an additional Rs. 3,00,000/- for future surgeries, physiotherapy, or other continued care. The injuries sustained by Sanjay Kumar have resulted in permanent physical disability, restricting his functional capacity and causing immense physical pain, mental agony, and loss of amenities of life. In light of the above, the Respondent No.1 has claimed a total compensation of 4 Rs. 27,45,000/- before the Tribunal under various heads, including medical expenses (past and future), pain and suffering, loss of future prospects, special diet, transportation, and permanent disability. The Respondent No.1 has also prayed for interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the application till realization. It is thus contended that all three the driver, owner, and insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable for the grievous harm caused to the minor respondent, and that just and fair compensation ought to be awarded accordingly. Hence this appeal is filed by the Insurance Company. 5 The learned Claims Tribunal, after appreciating the pleadings and evidence set-forth by the parties, held that the injuries sustained due to the alleged accident. It was further held by the Tribunal that the insured had sustained serious injuries in the accident, resulting in disability. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of 10,50,500/-, including expenses incurred for medical ₹ treatment. In respect of transportation an amount of 25,000/-, in ₹ special diet 25,000/- and for attendant 10,000/- was awarded. ₹ ₹ Therefore, the total compensation of 10,50,500/- was granted by ₹ the Tribunal to the claimants. 6 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in law in passing the impugned judgment and has wrongly appreciated the evidence on record. It is further contended that on the date of accident 5 driver/Respondent No.2 had not possessed the valid and effective driving license to drove the vehicle, therefore, there was clear breach of policy conditions and the insurance company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. Thus, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the insurance company is entitled for exoneration. 7 Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1/Claimant supported the impugned award and submitted that the award in question is based on the proper appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence which does not call for any interference. 8 Respondents No.2 and 3 herein remained ex-parte before the learned Claims Tribunal and did not submit any written statement or adduced any evidence in support of their case. 9 I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 10 It is evident from the record that the insurance company failed to discharge the burden of proof the of alleged breach of policy conditions. No documentary evidence or witness was produced to establish that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time. In the absence of such proof, the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from liability. The Mere pleading of breach is insufficient without substantiation. 6 11 The award passed by the learned Tribunal is well-reasoned and supported by documentary evidence, including medical records, FIR, disability certificate, and expense bills. The quantum awarded appears just and reasonable, having regard to the age of the victim, nature of injuries, extent of disability, and the suffering endured. 12 This Court finds no perversity, illegality, or material irregularity in the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal warranting interference under appellate jurisdiction. 13 In view of the foregoing, this Court finds no good ground to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, if not already deposited, shall be deposited by the appellant–Insurance Company within a period of eight weeks from today, along with accrued interest. 14 Record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA Saxena