Mohammad Sagir Vs Rinu Bibi

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:25340

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 1618 of 2019

¶6

Branch Manager Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Mahoba Bazar, G. E. Road, Near Sky Athomobiles, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh .........(Insurer of Trailer No. C. G. 01-J.A.-8937).

¶7

--- Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

Mohammed Sagir S/o Mohammed Husain Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Limtara, District Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh ........(Claimant),

¶10

Reenu Bibi W/o Azad Khan R/o Sutarra, Thana Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh.....(Owner Of Trailer No. C. G. 04J. A. 8937),

¶11

Mehmood Alam S/o Mohammed Nazir Aged About 35 Years R/o Sahawalpur Purena, Thana Bhrtpur, District Vaishali (Bihari) Present Address Sutarra, Cheriyan Tyre Workshop, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh .....(Driver Of Trailer No. C. G. 04-J. A. 8937),

¶12

Haider Ali Ansari S/o Peer Mohammed Aged About 38 Years R/o Village And Post Limtara, Tahsil And District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.....(Owner Of Truck No. C. G. 22-C. 0194),

¶13

Branch Manager New India Insurance Company Limited Civil Lines, Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh Through New India Insurance Company Limited Old Bus Stand, Opposite Rajiv

¶14

2

¶15

Plaza, Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh..... (Insurer Of Truck No. C. G. 22-C. 0194)

¶16

--- Respondent(s)

¶17

&

¶18

MAC No. 501 of 2019

¶19

Mohammad Sagir S/o Mohammad Hussain Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Limtara, District Balodabazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶20

--- Appellant/Claimant

¶21

Versus

¶22

Rinu Bibi W/o Azar Khan R/o Sutarra, Police Station Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Trailer Cg 04, JA -8937),

¶23

Mehmood Alam S/o Mohammad Nazir Ahmad Aged About 35 Years R/o Sahwalpur, Puraina, Police Station Bhartpur, District Vaishali (Bihar) At Present Sutarra, Police Station Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh.(Driver Of Trailer Cg 04, Ja -8937),

¶24

Branch Manger Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Through Limited, Mahoba Bazar, G.E. Road, near sky auto mobile raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (insurer of trailer CG 04, JA -8937).

¶25

Haider Ali Ansari S/o Peer Mohammad Aged About 38 Years Transport Gram, Post Limtara, Tahsil And District Balodabazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Truck Cg 22, Ja -0194)

¶26

Branch Manager New India Insurance Company Limited, Civil Line, Baoldobazar, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh Through New India Insurance Company Limited Infront Of Rajeev Plaz, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Truck No. Cg 22, C- 0194).

--- Respondents

3

MAC No.1618/2019

For Appellant	: Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1	: Ms. Debalena Maiti, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Advocate
For Respondent No.2 & 3	: None
For Respondent No.4	: Mr. Ashwell Franklin, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate
For Respondent No.5	: Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate &

¶31

MAC No.501/2019

¶32

For Appellant :	Ms. Debalena Maiti, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 & 2 : For Respondent No.3 :	None Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent No.4 :	Mr. Ashwell Franklin, Advocate on behalf of Mr.
	Samir Singh, Advocate
For RespondentNo.5 :	Mr. B.N. Nande,Advocate

¶33

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶34

Order on Board

¶35

18/6/2025

¶36

As the above two appeals arise out of the award dated 15.2.2019 passed by the learned 3^rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.203/2016, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶37

Appellant Insurance Company has preferred MAC No.1618/2019 seeking exoneration from the liability to pay amount of compensation of Rs.15,97,000/- together with interest @ 6% p.a. awarded to claimant /respondent No.1. Whereas, appellant-claimant has preferred MAC No.501/2019 seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶38

4

¶39

Brief facts of the case are that on 22.6.2015 the claimant was driving the truck bearing registration number CG22-C-0194, which was loaded with coal, and going to Mandirhasaud. At about 4:00 a.m. in the morning, when he reached near tyre shop of one Jabbar located on Bilaspur-Raipur Road, near Hirri Mines, truck of claimant met with an accident with Trailer bearing registration number CG04-JA-8937, which was parked in the middle of road without any warning signs in the form of parking lights or indicators. In the said accident, claimant suffered grievous injuries including rupture of intestines. He was taken to CIMS , Bilaspur for treatment however looking to his critical condition, he was admitted in Sriram Care Hospital, Bilaspur where he remain admitted from 24.7.2015 to 3.8.2015 and during this period, claimant underwent surgery of both his legs. Claimant filed an application seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- under various heads.

¶40

Non-applicant No.1, 2 and 4 did not appear before the Claims Tribunal and therefore they were proceeded ex-parte.

¶41

Non-applicant No.3, insurer of offending vehicle, submitted reply taking stand, that accident took place on account of negligence on the part of claimant, inasmuch as the truck collided with the trailer from behind. It was further stated that the offending vehicle was plied without license, permit and

¶42

5

¶43

fitness etc., therefore, there was breach of conditions of insurance policy, as such, it is not liable to pay the compensation.

¶44

Non-applicant No.5 also filed its reply denying the pleadings made in application. It was pleaded that it was the claimant who drove the truck negligently and dashed from offending vehicle. The truck was plied without license, permit and fitness etc., hence, insurance company is not liable to make payment of compensation.

¶45

The learned Claims Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for respective parties and considering the evidence adduced by the parties, partly allowed the application and awarded compensation of Rs.15,97,000/-, which include medical expenses of Rs.14,00,000/-.

¶46

Learned counsel for appellant in MAC No.1618/2019 would argue that this appeal is filed mainly on two grounds, firstly that the Claims Tribunal has not considered the negligence on the part of claimant/respondent No.1, as he himself hit the stationary truck which was parked on the side of road; and secondly, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.14,00,000/towards medical expenses overlooking the provision under which claim application is filed i.e. Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’). He submits that as per Second Schedule appended to Section 163-A of

¶47

6

¶48

the Act of 1988, the medical expenses cannot be allowed exceeding Rs.15,000/-.

¶49

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of claimant/respondent No.1 in MAC No.1618/2019 opposing the submissions of learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company, would argue that in claim application there is specific pleading that accident occurred at 4:00 a.m. in the morning and offending truck was parked on the middle of the road without switching on parking light or reflectors which resulted in accident in question and thus there was complete negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle. She also contended that the Tribunal considered the medical bills of treatment of claimant and awarded compensation.

¶50

She further submits that claimant has also filed the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation on the grounds that the rate of interest awarded is on lower side; adequate compensation has not been awarded towards future treatment expenses and amount awarded under the head ‘loss of income during treatment period is on lower side.

¶51

Mr. B.N. Nande, learned counsel for respondent No.5-New Indian Insurance Company Ltd. would submit that the Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the documentary and oral evidence on record has rightly concluded that respondent driver of offending vehicle has parked the vehicle negligently

¶52

7

¶53

on the road, towards divider side, which is first lane, and that accident was result of negligent act on the part of respondent driver of offending vehicle. This finding of the Claims Tribunal being based on proper appreciation of evidence in record does not call for any interference. He next contended that amount of compensation awarded to claimant, enhancement of which is sought in MAC No.501/2019, is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

¶54

11.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4Haider Ali in both appeals, has supported impugned award.

¶55

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of claim case including impugned award.

¶56

So far as submission of learned counsel for appellant in MAC No.1618/2019 that the Claims Tribunal erred in recording the finding that driver of offending vehicle was negligent, is concerned, though in FIR produced by claimant in record it is mentioned that the accident took place on 23.6.2015 at about 6:00 a.m. in the morning, but the insurance company has not examined any eyewitness or lodger of FIR to prove that the accident occurred in the early morning at 6:00 a.m. Thus, it is apparent that appellant Insurance Company has not led any evidence to prove the fact of contributory negligence on the part of claimant/driver of truck. In absence of any evidence to support the ground as raised in the written statement that

¶57

8

¶58

vehicle was parked by non-applicant No.2-driver of vehicle insured by appellant Insurance Company after taking precautionary measures like switching on parking lights, indicators or any other appropriate steps to warn other vehicles traveling on the highway in the night, it could not be said to be proved.

¶59

Mohammad Jabbar (NAW-2) is the eyewitness of accident. He has deposed that on the fateful day near his shop, the offending vehicle was parked on the middle of road without switching on front and rear indicators. Upon hearing loud sound, he came out of his shop and saw that truck bearing CG22-CI-0194 collied with the offending vehicle from back.

¶60

That apart, from perusal of spot map which forms part of record as Ex.D-2 it is apparent that the vehicle insured by appellant Insurance Company was parked by the side of divider, meaning thereby the truck was parked on the main lane of road. As per evidence of the claimant, truck was parked without switching on indicator or parking light enabling the passer-by to see from a distance that vehicle is parked on the road. In absence of any evidence on record to prove otherwise the fact pleaded in claim application by claimant and the evidence available, I do not find any error in the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to negligent act of non-applicant No.2- driver. It is hereby

¶61

9

¶62

maintained.

¶63

So far as second ground raised by appellant in MAC No.1618/2019 that filing of application under Section163-A of the Act of 1988 and fixation of maximum amount towards medical expenses under 2^nd Schedule i.e. Rs.15,000/-, is concerned, Second Schedule came to be amended w.e.f. 22.5.2018. Accident occurred on 22.6.2015. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Urmila Haider, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 4983 has observed that even though Second Schedule under Section 163A of the Act of 1988 came to be amended w.e.f. 22.5.2018, but it will have retrospective effect. In the aforementioned facts of the case and in light of above decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, I do not find any force in the second ground raised by appellant in MAC No.1618/2019 and accordingly it is hereby repelled

¶64

Now I will consider the appeal filed by claimant bearing MAC No.501/2019 for enhancement of amount of compensation. Claimant in the memo of appeal has made two fold submissions, firstly that rate of interest awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on lower side, and secondly, award of Rs.50,000/towards future treatment is on lower side.

¶65

To consider the ground raised by learned counsel for claimant that proper amount of compensation is not awarded for future

¶66

10

¶67

treatment, perused the evidence available in record. From the evidence on record it can be seen that claimant has not adduced any specific evidence to show that in future he will have to meet expenses in his treatment. Claimant has examined Dr. Amit Soni (NAW-2) but there is no whisper in his entire statement regarding future treatment of claimant. This witness has simply stated about the nature of injury suffered; claimant was cured and discharged from hospital; he has prescribed medicine and advised claimant for physiotherapy and today he cannot state about the condition of patient. He has admitted that as the claimant was cured, medicines were stopped. The claimant has not submitted any document to show that even after treatment from Dr. Amit Soni, he is further undergoing treatment. Any certificate issued by a doctor to the effect that appellant would require future treatment has not been produced. Even there is nothing to show that any amount has been incurred by claimant on physiotherapy. In absence of any material or evidence to show that claimant will require amount for future treatment, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal justified in awarding a sum of Rs.50,000/- for future medical treatment expenses, which cannot be said to be on lower side.

¶68

So far as rate of interest is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum. In the

¶69

11

¶70

instant case, accident has occurred on 22.6.2015. Taking into consideration prevailing interest rate on fixed deposits of a nationalized bank and further considering that Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as High Courts of the country are consistently awarding interest @ 7% per annum, I find it appropriate to enhance the rate of interest from 6% to 7% per annum. Accordingly, the rate of interest is enhanced from 6% to 7% per annum.

¶71

20. In the result;

¶72

MAC No.1618/2019 filed on behalf of Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. being sans merit is hereby dismissed.

¶73

MAC No.501/2019 filed by the claimant is allowed in part. It is ordered that interest @ 7% p.a. will be payable on the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal to the claimant/appellant.

¶74

SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI

¶75

The impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above.

¶76

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶77

roshan/-

Mohammad Sagir v. Rinu Bibi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Sagir v. Rinu Bibi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Gulawati Sahu Vs Sunil Dwivedi

Bhajan Singh Painkara Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jalil Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Shikha Meshram Vs Alok Kumar Singh

Rajkumar Kurre Vs Santosh Chandra

Smt. Vrinda Bai Vs Santosh Chandra