Ashok Bhatia vs Mangesh Kumar Salame
2026 Latest Caselaw 1443 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Ashok Bhatia vs Mangesh Kumar Salame on 8 April, 2026

Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal

Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal

                                            1




                                                          2026:CGHC:16135

ASHOK
SAHU                                                                   NAFR

Digitally signed
by ASHOK
SAHU               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Date:
2026.04.09
10:24:47 +0530


                                 MAC No. 471 of 2019


          1 - Ashok Bhatiya, S/o. Radheylal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o. Brahman
          Para, Ward No. 37, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgon, Chhattisgarh.


          2 - Sakshi Bhatiya, D/o. Ashok Bhatiya, Aged About 20 Years, R/o.
          Brahman Para, Ward No. 37, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgon,
          Chhattisgarh.


          3 - Gaurav Bhatiya, S/o. Ashok Bhatiya, Aged About 18 Years, R/o.
          Brahman Para, Ward No. 37, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgon,
          Chhattisgarh.
                                                             ... Appellants
                                         versus

          1 - Mangesh Kumar Salame, S/o. Thanuram Salame, Aged About 31
          Years, Caste Gond, R/o. Village Ghortalav, Thana Bagnadi, Tehsil
          Dongargadh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Car Tata Sumo
          CG 04 HB 1544)


          2 - Bhupendra Sursanwat, R/o. Village Ghortalav, Thana Bagnadi, Tehsil
          Dongargadh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Car Tata
          Sumo CG 04 HB 1544).
                                    2




3 - Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Khamthi
Line, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
(Insurer Of Car Tata Sumo CG 04 HB 1544)
                                                     ... Respondents

For Appellants : Mr. Kamlesh Patel, Advocate

For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate

(Single Bench)

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Judgment on Board

08/04/2026

1. The legal representatives of the original claimant Anjana Bhatiya

has preferred this appeal against the impugned award dated

23.10.2018 passed by Additional Claims Tribunal Dongargarh of

First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon in

Claim Case No.17/2017, by which the claim application for grant of

compensation filed by the original claimant has been dismissed

finding no merit.

2. Mr. Kamlesh Patel, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit

that though most of the findings have been recorded in favour of the

appellants but merely the Doctor has not been examined, the

compensation even for the permanent disability has not been

awarded, therefore, the appeal be allowed. He would reply upon

the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Raj

Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Another1.

3. Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel for the insurance

company/respondent No.3, would support the impugned award and

submit that the appeal of the claimants/appellants is liable to be

dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival

submissions made herein-above and went through the records with

utmost circumspection.

5. The Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Kumar (supra) in para 18

held as under :

"18. The Tribunal should also act with caution, if it proposed to accept the expert evidence of doctors who did not treat the injured but who give "ready to use"

disability certificates, without proper medical assessment. There are several instances of unscrupulous doctors who without treating the injured, readily give liberal disability certificates to help the claimants. But where the disability certificates are given by duly constituted Medical Boards, they may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the genuineness of such certificates. The Tribunal may invariably make 1 (2011) 1 SCC 343

it a point to require the evidence of the doctor who treated the injured or who assessed the permanent disability. Mere production of a disability certificate or discharge certificate will not be proof of the extent of disability stated therein unless the doctor who treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent of disability of the claimant, is tendered for cross-examination with reference to the certificate. If the Tribunal is not satisfied with the medical evidence produced by the claimant, it can constitute a Medical Board (from a panel maintained by it in consultation with reputed local hospitals/medical colleges) and refer the claimant to such Medical Board for assessment of the disability."

6. In this case, though the disability certificate has been filed vide

Ex.P-15, but the Doctors/Members of the Medical Board, who have

given the medical certificate, has not been examined. As such, in

light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar (supra),

the Tribunal ought to have constitute a Medical Board to prove the

medical certificate, which has not been done by the Tribunal and the

claim application has been dismissed. Accordingly, the finding to

the extent of non-entitlement of compensation made in impugned

award dated 23.10.2018 is set aside and the matter is remitted back

to the Claims Tribunal to examine the Doctors/Members of the

Medical Board to prove the disability certificate Ex.P-15 and

claimants would also be entitled to produce further evidence before

the Claims Tribunal. Thereafter, the award may be passed by the

Claims Tribunal within a period of four months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order. Record be sent forthwith to the

Claims Tribunal.

7. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent as indicated herein

above.

Sd/-

                                               (Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Ashok                                                Judge