Tomendra Kumar Sahu S/o Late Jeevanlal Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Jawahar Chowk v. 1 - Anshul Haldkar S/o Rajnarayan Haldkar Aged About 26 Years R/o House No
Case Details
1 HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.07.29 11:00:48 +0530 2025:CGHC:35902 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1984 of 2023 Tomendra Kumar Sahu S/o Late Jeevanlal Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Jawahar Chowk, Borsi, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. … Appellant versus 1 - Anshul Haldkar S/o Rajnarayan Haldkar Aged About 26 Years R/o House No. 1-D, Street No. 34, Sector 6, Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.),(Driver Of Car Number C.G. 07 – B.C./9053) 2 - Rajnarayan Haldkar S/o Haldkar Aged About 60 Years R/o House No. 1-D, Street No. 34, Sector 6, Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G),(Owner Of Car Number C.G. 07 – B.C./9053) 3 - United India Insurance Company Limited Paras Complex, Station Road, Durg, District Durg (C.G.), Through Branch Office, Near Chandra-Mourya Talkeis, Chouhan Towers, Supela - Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.),, (Insurer Company Of Car Number C.G. 07 - B.C./9053) ... Respondents 2 MAC No. 1986 of 2023 Umesh Kumar Sahu S/o Ramkumar Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Borsi, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant Versus 1 - Anshul Haldkar S/o Rajnarayan Haldkar Aged About 26 Years R/o House No. 1-D, Street No. 34, Sector 6, Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) (Driver Of Car Number C.G. 07- B.C./ 9053) 2 - Rajnarayan Haldkar S/o Haldkar Aged About 60 Years R/o House No. 1-D, Street No. 34, Sector 6, Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) (Owner Of Car Number C.G. 07- B.C./ 9053) 3 - United India Insurance Company Limited Paras Complex, Station Road, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) Through Branch Office Near Chandra-Mourya Talkies, Chouhan Towers, Supela- Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) (Insurance Company Of Car Number C.G. 07- B.C./ 9053) --- Respondent(s) For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Shivam Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate (Insurance Company) SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 24.07 .2025 1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in these appeals, therefore, they are clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common 3 judgment. 2. Both of these appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) have been preferred by the appellants/claimants challenging the impugned award dated 31/08/2023 passed by Learned 1 st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No. MACT/224/2019 and MACT/225/2019, respectively, whereby compensation of Rs. 50,000/- each has been granted to both the appellants/claimants with an interest of 9 % per annum. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, is that on 27/10/2018 at about 10:45 PM, both the appellants herein along with one Devendra Kumar were travelling from Durg to Rajnandgaon in a car and near Shivnath River at Anjora Road, Pulgaon, respondent No. 1, who was driving Honda City Car bearing Registration No. CG 07-BC/9053 in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the appellants’ vehicle and caused an accident due to which both the appellants suffered grievous injuries. The accident report was lodged at Police Station Pulgaon and Crime No. 414/2018 was registered against respondent No. 1 for offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC and charge-sheet was submitted before the Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the 4 Claims Tribunal rejected the medical disability certificates of the appellants and without following the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in the matters of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another1 and Prakash Chand Sharma v. Rambabu Saini2 awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to each of the appellants as compensation which is arbitrary and bad in law, therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 would support the impugned award and submit that both of these appeals are liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions and perused the record. 7. Admittedly, the disability certificates filed by the appellants herein were rejected by the Claims Tribunal holding that it was neither issued by the District Medical Board nor the Doctor who has issued the said certificate was a part of the District Medical Board, however, in this case, the course open to the Claims Tribunal was to follow the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Kumar (supra), wherein it has been held as under :- “18… If the Tribunal is not satisfied with the medical evidence produced by the claimant, it can 1 2 (2011) 1 SCC 343 2025 SCC Online SC 276 5 constitute a Medical Board (from a panel maintained by it in consultation with reputed local hospitals/medical colleges) and refer the claimant to such Medical Board for assessment of the disability.” 8. Similarly, paragraph 9 of the judgment rendered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Prakash Chand Sharma (supra) states as under :- “9. The Tribunal questioned the competence of the Medical Board to assess the permanent disability of the claimant – appellant, terming the certificate of the Medical Board as not completely reliable. If the Tribunal had reason to doubt the medical certificate, the option available before it was to have the disability re-assessed but it could not have gone into the details of the determination of disability. Since that course of action has not been adopted, the opinion of the Medical Board, being an opinion of the experts is to be treated as such. That apart, the comatose state of the claimant-appellant is not in dispute.” 9. In view of the aforesaid legal discussion, the impugned award dated 31/08/2023 passed in Claim Case No. MACT/224/2019 and MACT/225/2019 are hereby partly set aside to the extent of rejection of appellants’ claim holding that they have not suffered permanent disability and the Claims Tribunal is directed to refer the appellants to the Medical Board for assessment of their disability, if any, and after receiving the report, pass an award in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The amount already paid to 6 the appellants shall not be recovered from them and it will be adjusted while passing the fresh award. 10. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. Harneet Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge