\A cf-"/ IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C) No. .[be[.f OP 2008 (APPEAL VALUED AT Rs. 1 .00,000/-) Single SCESCh APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OP THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988. ^ APPELANT (^ON- APPLICANT N0.3) RESPONDENTS <(APPLICANT) ^',United India Insurance :I. Company Limited Through: Its Divisional Manager, Divisional- Office, Main Raad, Karba, Tah.8& Distt.-Korba, (CG). VERSUS Vishal Sehgal, S/0-Suresh Sehgal, aged-19 years, R/0-Rani Road, Korba, Distt.-Korba (CG). -»rz.< '^' ^ ( NON-APPLICANT No:l) /^ .^vs^: ^'€X> .^ (NON-APPLICANT N0.2) :3. Sudania Mandal, S/0- Baleshwar, aged-35years, R/0~ 3A,Ray Street, Kolkata 20, West Bengal. Hall Mukam- C/0-Rajeev Kumar Chaudhary, S/0- Kapileshwar Chaudhary, R/0- Indira Nagar Darri, Korba (CG)(Driver). Rajeev Kumar Chaudhary, S/0- Kapileshwar Chaudhary, R/0- Indira Nagar Darri, Karba (CG)(owner). HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GAKH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPBAL ICl N0. 1082 OF 2008 APPBLLANT/ NON-APPLICANT N0.3 RESPONDBNTS The Uiiiled India lusui'axice CoTnpany I^imited. Versus Kunal Ghai and others. Atfd MISC. APPBAL <g N0. 1094 OF 2008 APPELLAHT/ NON-APPLICANT N0.3 RESPONDBNTS Tbe Uxuted ludia iusuraxM;c Compsny T^imited. Versus Vishal Sehgal and otiier^. APPBAL8 UNDBR SBCTION 173 OF THB MOTOR VBHSCLBS ACT. 1988 DiiBisioii Beiiei&: Hoti'ble Sfari I.M. Qttddusi & Hon'ble Shri G. Minliaiuddin. JJ. Paresesit: Shri Dashrafh Gupta, counsel for the appeUant Shri Aviaash Smgh, counsel on behalf of Shri Awadh Tripatiii, counsel for respondent No,l in MA(C) No. 1082/2008. None for respondents No, 1 to 3 fhough served fhrough Paper publication in M.A.(C) No. 1094/2008. ORAL ORDBR (Passed on 08th day of December, 2011) Per I.M. Oiiddiasi, J. Since both fhese appeals i.e. M.A.(C) No. 1082/2008 aad M,A.(C) No. 1094/2008 arise out of the saine aecident which occurred on 16-03-2003 and bofh the clalm cases have been decided by fhe common award dated 20-03-2008 passed by Second Additional Motor Accident CIsdnis Tribuiial, Korba (for shoit the 'Claims Tribunal') m Claim Case Nos. 120/2006 and 119/2006, fhey aie beiiig disposed ofby this coniiiiou oixler. 2. Brief facts of fhe case, in nutsheU, are fhat on 16-03-2003 botii tiie clamiatits/iojured naniely Kunal Ghai aiid Vishal Sehgal wex'e leturTAiiig froiii Diadayal SaaskAitik Bhawao., T.P. Nagar, Korba on fhe niotorcycle beariag registiation No. C.G. 12/5286, Oii flie way, near Vikas Coijaplex, fhey were daslied by the offendiiig vefaicle Tenipo Trax bearlag registratiou No. C.G, 12/7873. Thls accident had occiirred oa account of raslx aiid negllgeiit driviiig of fhe driver of the Teiapo Trax^ aa a iie^iilt of which both the claiBiaats sustaiaed grievous iiijuries. The report of ffae iricideiit was lodged in fhe Police Statloa Kotoyali, Koiba. 3, The claAHiaat/iiijur^d Vishal Sehgal filed ttie Claiai Case No. 119/2006 for award of a total compensatjon of Rs.11,50,000/-. Learned Clalms Tribuiial haviag regard to the facte sitaation aiid fhe evidence on record, coasidering fliat fhe claimaat sustained 18% of pernianent disabillty^ awaixled a total siiia of Rs.1,00,000/- and after deductiug Rs.25,000/- which was alt^ady paid to tiie clamiaDit as mterim compensation, directed tilie noii- applicants to pay a totel sum ofRs,75,000/- along wifh iatere^t @ 9% per annuiki froiii ftie date of the application i.e. 8-8-2003y joinfly aiid severatly. 4, The claimant/Mijured Kuiial Ghai filed fhe Claim Case No, 120/2006 for award of a total compensation of Rs.1,47,00000/-. Learned Claims Tribuiial haviag regard to the facte aituation and the evidence on record, consideriag that the clamiatit suatained 29^o of periiiaaent dlsability, awaided a total suin of Rs. 4,50,000/~, directuig the non-applicaats to pay flie amouat of compensatloAi along wifli iiiterest @ 9% per atinum fi-om tlie date ofthe applicatioa Le, 17-06-2003, jomtly aad severally. 5. We have heard leamed couiisel appearing for tlie partiea aad pemsed tiie papers on A-ecord, 6. It appears froio. peA-usal of the records tiiat tlie treatiiig doctor was iiot examMied. Furfher, the Clalms Tribunal has not franied the specific issue regardliig breach of coiiditioiis of insuraace policy. We have also noticed fhat it has come ia evidence that the offendiiig vehicle was converted Into "Prwate Servlce Velucle" but under fhe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, "Private Service Veliicle^ has not been defuied, Therefore, a claA'lfication is required fronx R.T.O. cojacenied as to what type ofldie vehicle is uamed as "Private Service Vehicle' aiid whefher fhe Misuraace for a N 'i ^Si|& ^ u %^^' .^' ..^' ^'..;.:^'^'^ private carwoiild be applicable 111 case ofprivate service vehicle or not? 7. Periiiaaent disabllily has been defiaed iii Sectioii 142 ofthe Act wliich reads as under: "142. Periiiaiient Disablement,- For the puiposes of Uiis Chapter, periaaneat disableiaeat of a pex'son ^haU be deeined to have resutfced froni aa accMeat of the natzu'e referred to isi sub-section (1) of Section 140 tf such per^oii has suffered by reason of fhe accideiit, aay iiijuiy or iajunes i&ivolviiig:- (a) perxaaneiit privatioa of fhe sight of eifher eye 01 the hearmg of either ear, or privatlon of aiay meiiaber orjoiot; or (b) destnictioa or permaaeat jiBpaMng of flxe powers of aiiy iiiember or joiat; or (c) permau.ent disfigTiratioAii of tiie head or face." 8. Explaaation to sub seetioii (1) ofSectioii 163 A ^fthe l^totor Vehicles Act express fhat for flie purpose of that sub-sectloB, tfpermaaent dlsability^ shall have the same meaaiag aad exteat as in fhe Workiijien Cojiipeasatbii Act, 1923. la Sectond Schedule of Section 163-A at clause 5» fhe descriptloa of 'disabillty iii jaoa-fatal accideiits^ has beea givea aad after sub- clause (b), it has been merxtioned that fflnjuries deemed to result ia Permaaent Total Disablement/Permaaieat Partial Disablemeat and perceutage of loss of earnmg capacity shaUl be as per Schedule-I uiider Workiiiea?s Compensation Act, 1923'\ 9. In fhe case of Pratap Netredn Singh Deo vs^ ShrSniwas Sahata an<2 eiy&otfee^ reported la AER 1976 SC 222 four Judges of HonTjle Apex Court have held iii paiagraph 5 fhus as iiiider: "5 The expressioa "total disable£iiei3if? haa beeii defiaed iii Secttoa 2(1)(1) ofthe Act aa follows:- (1) "total disablemenf meaas suoh disablement, whether of a teiiiporaiy or perBianeat D.atare, aa iacapacitates workniaii for all work which he was capable of performiag at the tijoaie of fhe accident resulting ia such dlsablemeat^ It ha^ not beea ^ 4 disputed before us fhat the lo.juiy waa of sucfa a nature as to cause periiianent dlsableineiit to flie respondeiit aad the questioa for considejDatioii is whether tlie disablement mcapacitated the respondent for atl work which he was capable of performmg at the time of flie accideiit, The Coinmissioner has exaniinecl (faie queation aad recorded liis fiadiiig as follows:- The injured workmaii iii fhis case is carpeater by professioii^,.,,By loss of the left hand above flie elbow, he has evldenfty been rendered Miifit &c fhe work ofcarpeater as the work ofcarpeatiy caiiaot be done by oiie haad onfy^ This is cA)VM>UB3y a reasoaable aiid correct fliidiag. Couasel for ffae appeUaiit has not been able to assall it 011 aa^~ grouiid aiid it does not require to be corrected ia this appeal. Tliere is also no justfc&catloa for fhe othei argument which has been advaneed wtth refej^nce to IteBi 3 of Part II of Schedule I, because it was not fhe appellaiit's case before fhe Coiiuiiissioiier that aoiputatioii of tiie arin was froni 8W froixi tip of acroioioii to less ffaiaii 4%" below fhe tip of olecxaiioa* A new case canaot fherefore be allowed to be set up on feots which have not beeii admitted or established^ 10. In the case of JVattonaZ Snawremcc Co^ Ltd^ i?s» MM&cisir Ahnwd cind euiothef? reported m (2007) 2 SCC 349> tiie Honlale Apex Court has held in para 8 as urider: "Loss of earaiag capacity ia, ftxerefere, aot a substitate for perceatage of tihie pliyaical disabiemeiit. It is oiie of the factors takea iato account. In fhe iD.staat case the doctor wh.0 examitied the claimaat also iioted about tlie fanetional disableiiient In ofher words, fhe doctor had takea note offlie relevaiit factor^ relatiiig to IOSB of eaiTilag capacily. Witiiout ifcidicating aiiy reason or basis fhe High Court held fhat fhere was 100% loss of earniag capacily. Siace ao basis was i '7 ladicated ia suppoxl of tihe coaclusion, same caiiiiot be iiiaiataiaed. Therefore^ we set aside fliat part of fhe High Court^s oixler arid restoiie tliat of the CoiDiiaissioner, iii view of fhat fact situatioa. Commg to the questioa of liability to pay interest, Seotioii 4-A(3) deals with fhat questioii. Tlie provisioa Iias beea quoted above. 11. Therefbre, permaixent disability has direct liak wtth the functtonal capacity e€ fhe iajured. In tte-e liaBtaiit case, the Tribiinal has iiot aasessed fhe fuactioaal disability of tibe iajured/clauiiatits 011 fhe basis of fhe physical disablllty. The Tribunal has also not assessed flie future loss of eai'iiuig of tlie clamiaiits due to actual penaaAieat disabllity. In ^uch circuBistaaceSy Uie Tribuaal should have coiiducted prof^r enquMy as laid down m Rule 226 of tiie C»G. Motor VeNoles Rules, 1994 aiid SecUons 168 ofthe Motor Veliicles Act, 1988. 12. It has been provided m Riile 226 of the C.G. Motor Vel-iicles Rides, 1994 tliat flie Claiins Tribunal shall obtaia wliatever lAiforiiiation asid docunieats wliich inay be fouiid iiecessaiy frojoi fhe poUce, Biedical aad ofher aufhoritiea aad proceed to axwjd flie claim whefb.er fhe parties who were givea notlce, appear or not, on flie appomted date. Furtlier we caiiiiot igixere &e provisioas of Sectbn 168 of fhe Motor Vehictes Act, 1988 which provides fhat oa receipt of aii application for compensatloii made u/s 166, the Clalois Tribunal shaU after giviag fhe jpaities (iiicludMig the iasurer) an oppoi'tuixity of beLag Iieard^ hoM aii enquiiy into the claiin aad subject to fhe pjx>visions of Se€;tloa 162 Wioy make aa award deteriTiiosng the aaiouiA of compensatbn whlch appears to it to be jusfe Howe^er, the Tribuaal has iiot conducted aiiy enqui&y ia flie maiiaer iiidicated above, 13. Fuither m JR<^ Jffiiifneir PS* 4^<^ &itim<sr andl afiatfeer decided on 18th October, 2010 and reported in IV (2010}| Aoeideat 8& Compesasatioia Cases 815 (SC^ HoxAl>le iljie Apex Coiul laid down vide para 11 as iitider; ^ 11. The_Tribuiial should not be a sileAit spectator wheii Biedical evidence 1s teiidered ~?:B4 "^3»fe. loi re^ard to fhe miuries aiid their efifect, ia particulartheeM^nt^Q^ Secttons 168 aad 169 of fhe Aet iiaalce it evident that the Tribuaal does not functioii as a aeutral uBipire as ia a civU siiit, but as aa active explorer aiid seeker of trutli who is reauixed to 'hold aii eaattiry into the claim' for deteriimiiiig the <iust compensatioa^ The Tiibuiial should fherefore take aii actiw rolle to ascertain tlie true aad c-orrect positioa so that it caa assess tiie 'just coiiiDeAisatioa", Whlle dealuig wifh peraonal mjuiy cases, tibie TrlbuAial should preferably equip Itaelfwltli a Medical Dictionaiy mid a Haadbook for evalaatiou of permaaent ptiysieal iisipairiiient (for example fhe Maaual for Evaluation of Permaaent Physical Iiapalrmient for Orthopedic Surgeoa^^ prepared by Americaa Acadeniy of Orfliopedic Surgeons or ite Indiaii equivaleiit or ofher aufliorlzed texts) for understaadiiig the medical evidence and assessiiig fhe physical aad ftiAictlonal disabUily. Ttie Tribunal may also keep iii mcw fhe firat schedule to fhe Workmeii?s Coiiipenaation Act, 1923 which gives some mdiaation about the extent of permaiieiit disabllity in dififereixt types of mjuiies, m fhe case of workmeii. If a Doctor givmg evidence uses teeliBical inedical terms, fhe Tribiuial sliould iiistnict him to state in addttioa^ ia siixiple aoa- medical terms, tiie aature aad flie effect of the iiijuiy. If a doctor gives evideiice about the peix;entage of perinaAieiit disability, the Tribunal has to seek clarifioation as t0 whefh.er such percentage of disabllity is tliie fanctional disabUity wifh rejfereiioe to th^: whole body or whetiier it is oaly witii Y.,.' refereAice to a lioib, If fbe peix'eiitage of perinaneat disabllity is stated with refereace to a Umb, fhe Tribuiial wlll have to seefe the doctor's opiaion as to whefher it is poasiMe to deduce fhe correspoadiiig fiMictl^iial perm.aiieiit disability wifh A'eferenee to the whole body aad ifso fhe pexoejatage^ fEiiiphaais supplied) 14, Ia view ofthe above, we aie ofthe oplaion that the matter requAres reconsideratk>ix at fhe end of tl Tribuaal. Therefi>re, we atkw fhis appeal ia part, set aside the impugnyed award d^ted 20-03-2008 and remit back fhe matter to fhe Claims Tribunal for decision afresh ui view offhe obsei-vations niade above. 15, Needless to laentioAi that tlie parties shaU be pjiovided opportunity to amend fhe pleadings, adduce furfher evideace, file documeiits or get flie docujixente verlfied etc», aad fhereafter decision shaU be takea afresh. The Tribunal shaU ooiiduct aa enquiiy wliich is necessaiy for adjudicatioii of tlie exteiit of fiijo^tteiaal disableBient and futare loss of earaiiig of fhe clalQiants/mjured havmg regard to the exteiit of fhe physical permaaent disabUity. 16. It wffl be open fi>r fhe parttes to raise the qpestioii of quaiituni, ifany. 17. The paitles shaU appear before fhe Claims Tribuaal on 81st Jauuary, 2012. 18. Reeord of fhe Claims Tribuiial shall be seiit badk fbrthwith. 19, Iffhe aoiount is deposlted by fhe appeUaats, the same shall be kept m a fixed deposit m a Nationalteed Bank, iaitially for a period of six nionfhs, extendable froiii tlme to tuiie, However^ if tlie suia or any part offhe sum has been paid to ffeie claimant, fhe same shall not be recovered durmg fhe pendeacy of the claiia petition aad it wltl be subject to fresh decision by tlie Tnbuaal. 20. No order as to costs. i G. Minhajuddin Kw Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Judge