1 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU_R(C,GJ MISCELLANEQUSAPPEAf?^[b^ _2-'^~-V ^2006 APPELLANT APPLICANT Baran Ram Nishad, aged about 44 years, son of Late Bhukhan Ram Nishad, resident of village Parpoda, Post Office Mohbhatha, P.S. Dewkar, District Durg (C.G.) Presently resided at Baran Ram Nishad, son of Late Shri Bhukhan Nishad, through - Mohan Lal Nishad, son of Late Bihari Nishad, resident of Balaudi, PO Bhedsar, P.S. Pulgaon, Tah and Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS RESPONDENTS d, Birjhu Ram Sahu, son of Shri Shatrughna Ram Sahu, aged about 26 years, resident of Kuhi Khurd, P.S. Gainda Tola, Tah and Distt. Rajnandgaon, Presentlyresided at Rokde Garage, Station Road, Rajnandgaon, Tah and District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) (Driver of the Vehicle Metadoor No. CG 08 ZB 0152) NON-APPLIANTS 2. Mo Syd. Matin son of Umar Bhai resident of Baldeobag, Rajnandgaon, Tah and Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) jpwner ofj;he Vehicle Metadoor No. CG08ZB0152) .-'3^ The Oriental Insurance -/? ^-^Company Limited, Branch Office Kampti Line, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 491441 Qnsurer_ _ of the Vehicle Metadoor No. CG 08 ZB 01521 Having Policy No. 2003/3910 fPeriod from 28.8.2002 to 27.8.2003 MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 _OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE 1988 Aaiount claimed before the learned ^v HiGH COURT OF CHHATTfSGARH ATB(LASPUR MtSC. APPEAL (0 N0. 271 OF 200' APPL1CAN1 ia'an Ram Nishad Sirjhu Rarn Sahu and others. r*, Post fbr Order on: \5'^a A- Sd/- ! N.K.Agarwal |, Judge \-i Ka ssss'ss HiSH COURT OF CHHATTISGA^H AT B'LASPUR ISC.APPEAL(C; . 271 01 •^'^•^ i t'^SSKE f^ttei id^ ir*a Ram Sahu and others. APPEAL U.'S 173 OF THE MOTOR_VEHICLES ACT, 1Si (Sjj Mr. N.K. Present : Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, counse! fcrthe appeiiant. Shri Shailendra Sharma, counsei for respondent No.3. None for other respondsnts. ORDE R \3 01 Thls is cSaimant's appea! for enhancement of compensatton In tne amount awarded by XI! Additionai Motor Accident Claims Trifaunal. Durg (for short 'ths Tribunai') vlde award datsd 23-03-2SX36 !n Ctaim Case No.112/2005 whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs.6,000/- has been awarded in favour of the clajmanffappeiiant, exonerating respondenf No.S/Orientai Snsurance Company from its tiab;iity to pay compensation to the appeilant. 2. The facts briefly stated are as under: Thai on 13-03-2003, appellanfc'claimant mst with an accident wlth matador besring regjstration No. CG 08 ZB/0152 as a resu!t of which he sustalnsd jnjuries. ^- ' The c'aimant filed cjaim petition underSsction 165 ofthe Motor ^. Vehictes Act,1988 (for short 'the Act') claiming Rs.1,69,508/- as compensation ror the injuries sustaihed by him in the said accident asainst the resoondents. ^- 4. in ths reply fiied by respond^nt No. 3/insurance Company, factum of insurance of the offenctir.g vehicie at the time of accident was admitted. . 5. The iearned Tribuna! on ctose scrutiny of the evidencs led, materiai placed and submissions mad®, held respondent No.1 responsible. for the said accjdent, awarded She aforementioned amount of compensation in favour of the appstlanf, sxonerating the 2 insurance Company from its liafaiiity to pay compensation for want of insurance papers. 6. Learned counse! appearing for the appelianyciaiinant woufd submit that the !earned Tribunal has erred in exonerating raspondent No.3/!nsurance Company from its liabitity to pay compensation on the jround of non fiiing of insurance papers in the case whereas, the factum of insurance has been specifically admitted by the insurance Company in its v/ritten statement fifsd before the Tribunat. He wouid furthsr contend that the learned Tribunai has erred in awarding low compensation inasmuch as Ex. P-8 :'.e. receipt issued by Doctor Manoj Jain for Rs.10,830/- has not besn considered by the ieamed Tribunal. 7. On the other hand iearned counse! appearing for respondent No.3 wouid submit that the appeliant/ciaimant has not established any disability/permanent djsability by examining any treating Doctor in this behaif; Dr. Prlanoj Jain examined by the appeiiant on Ex.P-8 (receipt for Rs.10,830;'-} couid not state which type or operation, the appeitent has undergone for which the appelfant has pai'd Rs.3,500,/- to him, the detaits of expenses given in the receipt is ateo not proved by the appeliant and in such circumstances, ft cannot be said that the iearned fribuna! has awarded tow compensation to the appeliant. However, in fhe i'ght of writEen sfatement filed by the insurance Company before the Tribunal. he couid not substantiate the oart of award bv which the Tribunal has exonerafed the Insurance Company from its Eiability to paycompensation. — have hsard leamed counsel for the psrties, perused the award impugned and the record of the Tribunai. 9. in order to appreciate the rival contsntions, i have perused the record of the Tribunal. As per M.L.C. Repoft, injury No.1 was slmple and injury in the ankte of righf foot was referred for x-ray examination. As per X-ray report (Ex. P-6), no boray injury' was found and as per Discharge Tickef (Ex. P-7), the appeiiant remained in the hospite! from 13-03-2003 to 17-03-2003 on the baste free pass and was treat.sd for fhe injury sustained by him in the ankle of right foot. So far as the admissiQn in Steei City Medica! Centre Is concerned, no such bed head ticket or discharge ticket has been filed. OnSy one receipt Ex. P- i) fileci by the appetlant which shows that fhe appetlsnt has paid x'-s^. f£"^^ Rs.10.830/- but Dr. Manoj Jain could not explain for what the said amount was charged from the appellant as he was not abte to state the nature of operation undergone by the appeltant. He says everything written in the discharge ticket but the appellant did not ille the discharge ticked and thus, utteriy failed to prove as a fact that he has paid the above amount vide Ex. P-S to the Steel City I'Vledical Centre for the treatment of injuries sustained by him in the said accident. Moreover, thsre appears to be no co-relatJQn between the injuries as mentioned in M.L.C. (Ex. P-3) and discharge ticket (Ex. P-7) and the payment a!!eged to be made by the appeliant as per Ex. P-8. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, iearned Tribuna! has no erred in disbelieving the receipt Ex. P-8 and the amount awarded by the iearned Tri&unal does not catl for any i or Kvr 11. So far as the question of liability of insurance Company Is concerned, in view of the specific admission in the written statement fiied by the Insurance Company, the iearned Trlbunai has certainty erred in exonerating the Insurance Company from its iiability to pay compensation to tbe appeiiant. 12. !t is trite !aw that once a fact has been admitted by the opposite party, then the same is not required to be proved by the ctai ieading evidence on that fact. Therefore, in the considered thls Court, the Ensurance Company has been wrongly exonerated by the iearned Tribunal. - •'.-. • 13. For the foregoing, the appeliant's appeal is allowed In part and the Insurance Company is he!d iiable for payment of compensation to the appellant. The Oriental Insurance Company/respondent No.3 is aranted two months' time for Davment of compensation to the aopeilant as awarded by the Tribunal. Sdl- i N.K.Agarwal Judge