Kailash Patel Vs Asharam Nirala

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:24759

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 2159 of 2024

¶6

HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI

¶7

Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2026.06.23 13:18:15 +0530

¶8

Kailash Patel S/o Late Punaram Patel Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Pangaon, Tahsil Lawan, P.S. City Kotwali, Balodabazar District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Claimant)

¶9

... Appellant

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Asharam Nirala S/o Dukaluram Nirala Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Jhonka, Tahsil Balodabazar, P.S. City Kotwali, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G. 12 C 2778)

¶12

2 - Sushil Sultaniya S/o Satyanarayan Suntaniya Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Shivrinarayan, Tahsil And P.S. Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G. 12 C 2778)

¶13

3 - Branch Manager Royal Sunderam General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Reader House Plot No. 136, Sector - 44, Gudgaon D.O. Delhi Regional Office Gudgaon, . (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G. 12 C 2778)

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Appellant	:	Ms. Dhaneshwari Patel on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra K. Patel,Advocate
For Respondent No. 2	:	Mr. Rohan Kumbhare, Advocate
For RespondentNo. 3		Mr.Anupam Dubey,Advocate

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput,

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

18.06.2026

¶19

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been preferred by the appellant/claimant, being aggrieved by the award dated 08.08.2024 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short learned Tribunal), Balodabazar District- BalodabazarBhatapara (C.G.) in claim case No. 65/2023.

¶20

2

¶21

1. By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,09,200/- to the appellant/claimant on account of the injuries sustained by him in an accident that occurred on 25.01.2023 due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Truck) bearing Registration No. CG-12-C2778 driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3.

¶22

1. As per the pleadings in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, the appellant/claimant met with an accident on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle resulting into permanent disablement to the tune of 80% thus compensation of Rs. 27,90,800/- was claimed.

¶23

1. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/driver and owner filed their written statements denying the averments made in the claim application. Respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company) in the usual course, also denied the averments and further pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, and that there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

¶24

1. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed 8 issues and, after appreciating the material available on record, decided the same in favour of the appellant/claimant and awarded the aforesaid compensation.

¶25

1. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that a disability certificate certifying permanent disability to the extent of 80% issued by the District Medical Board was filed before the learned Claims Tribunal. However, due to inadvertence, the said certificate could not be duly proved and exhibited by examining the competent witness. It is contended that the claim petition specifically pleaded the

¶26

3

¶27

factum of disability and the certificate forms part of the record. He further submits that it is incumbent upon the Claims Tribunal to conduct a proper enquiry for ascertaining the genuineness and effect of the medical disability certificate while determining just compensation. It is, therefore, prayed that the matter be remanded to the learned Tribunal and the claimant be afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence for proving the disability certificate.

¶28

1. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that all documents pertaining to the alleged disability were already placed on record before the learned Tribunal and having failed to prove the same despite adequate opportunity, the claimant cannot now be permitted to raise such a contention at the appellate stage.

¶29

1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with due care.

¶30

1. A perusal of the pleadings reveals that the appellant/claimant has specifically pleaded that he suffered permanent disability Ex. P/21 as a consequence of the accident. The record further discloses that a disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board, Balodabazar-Bhatapara is available on record which prima facie indicates permanent disability to the extent of 80%. It is well settled that the primary duty of the Court and the Claims Tribunal is to ensure the award of just and fair compensation to the victim. Merely on account of a technical lapse in proving a document, a claimant should not be deprived of compensation to which he may otherwise be entitled, particularly having regard to the beneficial and welfareoriented nature of the provisions of the MV Act.

¶31

1. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be served by affording the appellant/claimant an opportunity to prove the disability certificate and lead appropriate evidence in support thereof. Accordingly, the impugned award is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Claims Tribunal for fresh adjudication for determination of compensation payable on account of the alleged permanent disability and

¶32

4

¶33

consequential enhancement, if any, over and above the compensation already awarded.

¶34

1. The appellant/claimant shall be at liberty to adduce evidence for proving the disability certificate. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Claims Tribunal on 30.07.2026 . The learned Tribunal shall make all endeavours to conclude the proceedings and decide the claim expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties.

¶35

1. Accordingly, the appeal stands partly allowed. The record be transmitted forthwith to the learned Tribunal.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶38

Judge

¶39

H.Ansari

Kailash Patel v. Asharam Nirala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Patel v. Asharam Nirala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Derhin Bai Vs Basant Sahu

Ashok Kumar Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Branch Manager, Vs Ram Lai

Smt. Pyari Bai Sahu Vs Animesh Chakravorti

Pragatisheel Paper Mill Shramik Sangh Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Copmpany Limited Raipur Branch Vs Menka Paikra