^ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH_AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL rCI N0. ^ ^/2oo8 Oivjsion Banch MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OFtHE MOTOR VEHICLEACT, 1988 APPELLANT INSURER ^^ft ^..-"^^-; ^y^ -6,^^^ •^. ^tt 0-? ?^^"' RESPONDENTS CLAIMANT ICICI Lombard, General Insurance Company Limited/ Registered office: ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra- Kurla, Complex, Mumbai, 4000 51, through its Legal Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Lal Ganga Shopping Mall, 3rd Floor, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.). - VERSUS 1. Sureshchand Chandak, agedabout 54 years, W/o Girdhari Lal Chandak, Occupation Income Tax Advisor, R/o M.R. colony, D/273^ Taigor Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.). DRIVER 2. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, aged about ^ 25 years, S/o Dayaram Chauhan, R/o Shyam Nagar, behind Kapoor hotel, P.S. Talibandha, Raipur (C.G.) OWNER 3. Prashant Nayak, agedabout 27 years, S/o Abhinnanyu Nayak/ R/o House No. B/6/ Basant Park Colony, New Puraina, P.S. Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.). CLAIM'IN APPEAL VALUED AT RS. 5,53,800/- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'bteShri I.M. Quddusi.J. & ^km'bteShn Prash^ Kurnar Mishra. J. M.A.(ClNo.107eof2008 APPELLANT (NSURER^ RESPONDEMTS tCIC! Lombard, CompanyUmted. Generat (nsurance Vwsus Sureshchand Chandak and o »ers. mSC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. Appearance: Shri Sourabh Sharma. counsel for the appellant Shri Ratan Pt^hti, counsel for respondent No.3. Foltowing I. M. Quddusi. J. ORALORDER (04rt2^010) orat orcter of ttie Court was pass^l by List is being revised. Case catled out. No one is present for respondent No.l/daimant. however leamed counset for the appeltent and respondent No.3 are present, therefore the appeal is being dispwed of ©x-parteagainst responctent No.2, since thjs is an admitted appeat. (2) This appeat has been filed a^ainst the impugned awapd of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 86^2006 dated 27/03/2008 awarding Rs.5,53,800/- as compensation tothe claimant. (3) The brief fads of the case are that on 31/12f2QQ5 at about 12^)0 in the night, the injured along with his wife was retuming from Niranjan Dharmshala on his Activa bearing Regtstration No. C.G.04-B/5428>atthat time when he reached Tetibandha Raihway Crossing one Indica Car tsearing registration No. C.G. 04-B/9167 whfch was being driven by ,..^^s^i^ ^.A. v^ ^ 1 ^':-\ ss \:^y -^k— respondent No.2 Rajesh Singh in a rash and negligent manner dashed the respondent No.1, as a result of whteh he sustained grievous tnjuries and he was admitted in the Ramkrishna Hwpital. Raipur. The injured ^^is £@edabout 54 years and ha^ ctaimed a sum of Rs.33,00,000/-. (4) Learned couns^ for the appeltant ha» submitted that the injured has not got Permanent Oisability Certificate from the Medical Board or from the Hospttat, where he was getting freatment, but gcrt certlffcate by a doctor who had not treated the dafmant The accident had taken piace on 31/12/2005 but the certificate was issued on 19/11/2007 showing permanent disability to the e^ent of 30%. (5) The doctor who issued Permanent Disabtlity Certificate as mentioned above namely Dr. G.S. Bachu has stated tn hls statement who appeared as ctaimants witness No.2 that he had not treated $he ctaimant and on ttie basis of perusal of ttie records he issued ttie Permanent Disabiltty Certificate. He had also not got the X-ray of the injuries/fractures. (6) In view of the above, ttie submission made by the teamed counsei for the appellant regarding the authenticHy of disabitity certificate appears convincing and ttie certificate cannot be accepted, but ttiis is a fact that the injured /daimant got mutSpte ft'actures and injuries anct got a long treatment. The medical bttls/cash memo submitted by him to the tune of Rs.2,80,000/- are not disputed by leamed counsel for the appetlant. tt is also not disputed ttiat the injured had submitted the income tax retum showing his income as 99,500/- for the financial year 2004-2005 (Assessment Year 2005-2006) and no income tax was pakl on such income by him. He was gettins treatment from 01/01/2006 tiU 02/07/2007. Naturally there is loss of (ncome which we assess to the tune of ^. Rt. 1 -3- Rs.60,(X%)/- inctuding the e)q»i^es of special diet and the cha^es of attendant. For g^ting treatment at Raipur and Nagpur and transportation and the other expenses of the injured as we(t as attendant to our opinton would come to Rs.25,000/-. The injured/daimant got four fractures and further replacement of hip bone. For f<Hir fractur^ in our opinion he woukl be entitled to get Rs.15,000/- per fra(Aure and for replacem^it of bone h© shoukl get Rs. 25.000/- in respect of pain and suffering and therefore the total would COWQ to Rs.85,000/-. Ther^ore, the claimant is entitted toget Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation. Besld^ the above w& have founct that the Tribunal has imp<»edpenal interest @ 9% whteh is not proper. The daimant woutd be entitted to get a simpte interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the ctaim petttiwi till ttie paymwit of comp^nsation. (7) tn the resutt, this appeat is altowed in part, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge