1-1 ^- \ HON'BLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISHGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT M.A.(C)No.- .$'3~^/^% THE OR1ENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DTVISIONAL OFFICE NO.-l, KUTCHERY CHOWK RAIPUR C.G. RESPONDENTS ^" :-1 ANURAG SHRIVASTAVA AGE ABOUT 46 yrs. , S/0 LATE KRISHNAKISHOR SHRIVA'STAVA, R/0 NEW SHANTINAGAR RAIPURC.G. ^ 2. SMT. REKHA AGRAWAL W/0 SHRl KAILASH AGRAWAL,R/0 MAINRAOD KESLA, TAH. BILHA, DIST1. BILASPUR C.G. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 QF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT II f^ HIQH_CQURTOF_a3HATI3SGARH AT BSLA8PUR DIVISIOr, BBNCHs HON'BLB MR. i.M.OUDDUSi 85 HOHf>BLB MR-©.MI??HAJUDDIN,JJ M.A.iCi No. 556/2006 APPBLLAKT RESPONDENTS Vs The Oriental Insurao.ee Co. Ltd. Anurag Sl-uivastava aiid ^nothe.r. APPE^LLANT RESPONDBNTS M.A.i'CI lio. 374/2006 Anurag Slirivastava Vs Siut, Rekha Agrawal aiid aiiofher. Presesxt: Sliri Sudhir Agrawal, Adv. for thc appcllant in MA(C) No.556/2006 emd for respoiident No.2 iii MA(C) No. 574/2006. SIiri B.P. Sharma, Advocate for appellan.t. io. M,A.(Q No. 574/2006 and respondent No.l m MA (C) No. 556/2006. '^ ORDER (Orall (3^ November, 2011) Per U¥l. J, M.A. (C) No,556/2006 filed by tlie Iiisuraiice CoiiiipaQy aiid M.A.(C) No. 574/2006 med by tlie mjured-claimaiit are bemg disposed of by tiiis commoD. order as bofh fhese appeals are arisiiig out of tlie awaixl dated 20-09-2006 passed by ti.ie leariied 13th- Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (P,T.C.), Raipur (for short 'tlie Claims Tribuiial') m Claka Case No.79/2006. 2. . The appellaD.t-InsLLraiice Com.paoy has chaltenged liability parfc of the impugned award, whereas th.e iDJured-claimaiit has prayed for'enliaiAcenient oftlie amount of compeiisatlon awar-ded by the Clamis Trlbunal, 3. Facts, iu nutshell, are that the liijured-claLQiaut haa filed aa application under Sectbns 166 & 140 of -tlie Motor Vehletes Act, 1988 (for short 'tl-ie Act, 1988"; seekiiig compeasatioa to the -\. i'l<;- ^ ^^ tune of Rs.49,25,000/- for the periiiaD.eiit disabllity siisfauiecl by him lii ao. accMent whicli took place 0x1 4.10.2004 wli^n fhe caT beaiMig registi-ation rrujjiber CG 06-8100, wlilch was beiiig driven by fhe clako.aiit slowlj & steadlty, was met with. aa accident wlfh 'llie tnick beai-Irig regisu'ation No. C.G. 10-ZB/0225, whlcli was stationaiy aiid negligently par-ked 011 tlie road side i-e. wltliout usiiig Midlcator etc., as a resiilt ofwhich tlie clalmaiit Stistaiiied grievous iojuries on his waist (rip Joiiit) aiid Knee. Ttie coiiipensation lias been souglit IfUer alia on tlie ground that diie to permanent dlsabilily sustaiiied by the claimaiit io. tiie said accident, he has sufiei-ed loss of eaniiiig capacity, 4. The Claliiis TribLiiial oonsideriiig the material available on record allowed tlie petition of fhe claksiaiit aiid awardecl a sum of 11,00,937/- holdiiig tlie Iiisuraace Coiiipaiiy as llable to pay fli-e aiiiount of coiiipensatioii. However, siiice tlie Claims Tribunal has reached to fhe conclusion that there was contTibutojy negligence aiid extent of negllgence on Uie part of th.e clakaarit was 50%, flierefore^, the ciamiarit 1s only efitifled for Rs.5,50,000/- as coiiipensatloii. 5. ¥/ehave lieard leaiii.ed couiisel for tlie pai'ties, periised tlie I'ecord ofthe Clalois Triburial as well as flie impugned awaixl, o. The issue irivolved in tliese appeals is wlietlier extent of disabilify or mipairm.ent shown ia the iiiedical cerLiffcate aud proved by ttie clau3iaat caa be said as impairmeiit of eanilug capacity, 7. In tlie matter of ¥3^Aj^y an^ reported in 2010 SC 996 s 2010(12) 2@S the Hoii^ble Apex Court has lield Uius; "13. We niay now siuiimEii'ize tlie priiiciples clisctissecl above; a. all the injunes (or peniianeiit disabillties arisiiig froxn injuries), do not result in loss of eaoiio.g capacity; b. the percentage of permaEieiit disabluty with reference to tiie whole body of a uerson, cannot b^ assuiaed to be the percentage ofloss ofeamiiig capacity. To put it differentiy, fhe percentage of ^ 1 <?': loss of earniag capacity is uot the sanie as the percentage ofpermaaent disabUity (except ia a few cases, where the Tribunal 011 the basis of evidence, coiicltides tliat percentage of loss of eamiag capacity is the saiae as percentage of peniiaiient disabiMty), c. The doctor who treated aa iiijured claimaiit or who exaoinied hisii subscquently to assess fhe extent of his pennaaent disabiMty can give evidence oxily in regard to fhe exfent of permanent disability. Thc loss of eamiiig capacity is SGmethixig that wiil have to be assessed by the Tribuual with refereiice to fhe evidence iii entirety. d, The saoie permaaent disabllily aiay result iii different percentages of loss of earniag capacity ia different persons, dependiag upon tlie nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education aad ollicr factors/' 8. The Apex Court lias furllier obsen/ed ia Para 11 of Rajkuiiiar^s case (supra) tliat "the Tnbunal shoutd nat be a sileni speciaior wfien medical e^idence is on record in regard to the Ifyu/ies and fhelr effeci, especlally ihe exient of perma/zent dlsablUiy. Sectlorvs 168 & 169 ofthe Act make it e^iderd ihai thc Tfibuf(€ilcloes noifunction as a rteuiral wnpire as iria ci^il suii, bui as an actli/e explorer dnd seeker of truth w}w Is requirecl to 'hold an inquiry Into ihe ckuyn'for deienrdmng ihe ijust co^ipe^isa^JonV^ 9. In the llght of tlie above law laid down by fhe Honyljle Apex Court if fhe impugned award is tested theD. it 1s clear fhat iii tlie impugned awai'd fliere is no fliidiiig of Claiois Tribuiial about the extent ofloss ofeamiug capacity on flie basis ofevidence aiid flie Claluas TribtUial has treated fhe physlcal dlsabllity shown lii tlie certlflcate as also flie loss of eaniiag capacity, whicli is contr-aiy to fhe judgio.ent of flie Hon?ble Stiprenie Court 111 Rajkumai-'s case (supra),Therefore, we feel tliat present is a fit case for reniaiid of tlie iiiatter for fresh adjudication of righ.ts aiicl liabllities of the pai-ties. 10, !n tlie restilt, we allow these appeals iii part, set asicle tlie iiupugiied awaixl aiid reaiit tiie iiiatters back to tlie Ckimis Trlbunal for decislon afresh lii vlew of tlie obser^atk^ns io.ade io. this order, •^m- 11. Needless to iiientioii that flie pm''ties sliati be provicied opportuiiity to amend ttie pleadiiigs^ adduce furflier evidence, file documerits or get tiie docuiLients verified etc., on &€basis offhe pleadiiigs already avallable 011 record. 12. At tiiis stage, it has been subiiiltted by tlie leai'ned counsel for flie Insuraiice Coiiipao.y fhat entii'e amouat has been deposited wltli flie Clamis Tribuiial and disbur^eiiieiit lias been stayed by tliis Honljle Court. Leai-ned counsel for fhk claimaiit lias prayed for dlsb-tirseBient of tlie amotiut wliich the learned counsel for tlie appenaiit-Insuraiice CoBipany has objected/ 13. However, io. tiie iiiterest of both tlie parties, it is dii'ectecl that flie Clamis Tribunal shaU permit tlie ciaiaiaiit-iiijured to witliclraw 50% oftlie aiiiount alreacly deposited by tlie lasuraiice Compaiiy, subject to clalBiaiit's furnlshiiig security for tlie said amount, The balaace aBiouiit shall be kept iii a fixed deposit scheme of aiiy nationallzed baiik iiiitially for a period of oue year auid shall be subject to fliial decisioii oftlie case. 14. The parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 14-12-2011. 15. Record ofthe Claims TnburAal shall be sent back forfliwlfh. Kvr 16. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge