“A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury but also for the loss, which he suffered, as a result of such injury”, this remarkable stand was forwarded by Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court, in a single judge bench chaired by Hon’ble Justice Mr Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, in the miscellaneous appeal case of Roshan Goyal v. Rakesh Kumar Malhotra & ors., [M.A(C) No.1378 of 2015].
On the fateful day, i.e. on 27.12.2013, Claimant Roshan Goyal was going by his motorcycle along with his sister-in-law Neeta Khandey from Bilaspur to village Pendari, en route, he was dashed from his back side by the offending vehicle, i.e. motorcycle ‘Hero Honda’ bearing registration No.CG 10 NC-4953 owing to rash and negligent driving by its driver namely Ajay Malhotra, NonApplicant No.2. As a result of the alleged accident, his right leg below the knee got fractured along with other injuries, which he received in other parts of his body. He was admitted into Gayatri Hospital, Bilaspur where he was operated for fracture of Tibia and medial malleollus and an implant was put inside the bone i.e. a rod was fixed for the treatment of fracture.
On account of the aforesaid accident, the matter was reported to P.S Chakarbhata in connection with Crime No.10/14 and after the investigation, the charge sheet (Ex.A-2) was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate, Belha against the driver of the alleged offending vehicle under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC while specifying not only the number of his vehicle as CG 10 NC-4953, but by seizing the same from him vide seizure memo (Ex.A-3) dated 18.01.2014.
This Appeal has been preferred by the Claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’), questioning the legality and propriety of the award dated 26.09.2015 passed by the 9th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.188/2014, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the Claim Petition filed under Section 166 of the Act of 1988.
After examining all the submissions, arguments and evidences forwarded by the councils, the Hon’ble SC observed that, “As far as the defense taken by the insurer that since the vehicle in question was being used in violation of the policy and therefore, no liability could be fastened upon it, is, however, liable to be rejected in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence led by the insurer as the Sujit Kumar Rai (NAW-2), who was examined by the insurer, has, however, failed to establish the same. In such circumstances, the Insurance Company cannot be held to be exonerated from its liability, as alleged. Accordingly, it is held that the vehicle in question was not being used in violation of the policy and the insurer of it is thus held liable to indemnify the insured.”
The bench further added that, “the Appeal is allowed in part and the Non-Applicants are held liable jointly and severally to satisfy the aforesaid amount of compensation and it is directed that Non-Applicant No.3-I.C.I.C.I Lombard Insurance Company shall pay the aforesaid amount of compensation of Rs.28,250/- to the Claimant with 7% interest per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till its realization.”