Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 / 5 2025:CGHC:36246 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 200 of 2019 • Sheetal Kuamr Sahu S/o Shri Jethu Ram Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Bajrangpur, Post Piproud Police Station Gobra, Navapara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. versus --- Appellant/ Claimant 1. Amar Kumar Nand @ Lucky S/o Suresh Kumar R/o Ramsagar Para, Police Station And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. .........Driver Of Alleged Vehicle Maruti Swift Bearing Registration No. C. G. 04 H C- 0538.
Legal Reasoning
2. Smt. Minakshi Nag W/o Manish Nag R/o Bhanupratappur, P. S. Bhanupratappur District Kanker Chhattisgarh. ..............Owner Of Alleged Vehicle Maruti Swift Bearing Registration No. C. G. 04 H C- 0538. 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Kachhari Chowk Jail Road, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ..............Insurer Of Alleged Vehicle Maruti Swift Bearing Registration No. C. G. 04 H C- 0538. ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate : Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate --- Respondents Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 25/07/2025 1. Appellant/ claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) for enhancement of the amount of compensation challenging the impugned award dated 17.07.2018 passed by Learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 43/2016, PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 5 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 20,89,129/- as compensation and fastened first liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon non-applicant No. 3. 2. This appeal filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of amount of 3. 4. compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Motor accident occurred on 15.08.2015 at about 11:30 a.m., involvement of vehicle car bearing number CG04-HC-0538 (hereinafter referred to as “offending car”) owned by non-applicant No. 2, driven by non-applicant No. 1, non-applicant No. 3 being insurer and liability to satisfy the amount of compensation fastened upon non-applicant No. 3 is not in dispute. For the foregoing discussion, this Court is not dealing with the facts of accident as pleaded by the parties in their claim application, reply to the claim application and further adverted in the impugned award but only considering the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties on enhancement of amount of compensation. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager sum of compensation of ₹ 20,89,129/-. He contended that learned Claims Tribunal disbelieved the occupation and income of appellant pleaded in the application and has erroneously assessed income as ₹ 6,000/- per month. He contended that at the time of accident, appellant-claimant was aged about 32 years, doing work of salesman and earning ₹ 15,000 per month, therefore, income as pleaded in the application ought to have taken for calculating amount of compensation, his income would have definitely increased in future. It is also contended that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under future loss of income as he suffered permanent disability and the amount awarded under medical expenses is also less. Hence, the amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 3 / 5 5. Learned counsel for Respondent 3-Insurance Company would oppose the 6. 7. submission of learned counsel for appellant and further submits that the appellant failed to prove his occupation and income by bringing cogent and reliable piece of evidence, hence, the Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed income of appellant-claimant on notional basis considering nature of his work. Amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal in the facts of the case is just and proper which does not call for any interference of this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellant with regard to assessment of income of the appellant-claimant is concerned, accident was occurred on 15.08.2015, occupation of appellant-claimant is pleaded as Salesman in Kuleshwar Medical and General Store. True it is that the appellant-claimant failed to produce any admissible evidence to prove his occupation and income. In above facts of the case, income of deceased/ claimant is to be assessed on notional basis, keeping in mind factors like date of accident, age of appellant-claimant, wage structure, price index etc. are to be taken into consideration. Courts/ Tribunal can also take the help of notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act to assess wages. In the said facts of the case, the occupation of appellant- claimant can only be treated as a unskilled labourer for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. Therefore, this Court finds it appropriate to take the wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. As per the notification issued by the competent authority, the minimum wages prevailing for an unskilled labourer during 01.04.2015 to 30.09.2015 is ₹ 5,969/- per month, which is not disputed by the counsel for Respondent No. 3. Upon taking into consideration the 4 / 5 aforementioned factors, particularly the date of accident, age of appellant- claimant and nature of work, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of appellant-claimant as ₹ 6,000/- per month ie., ₹ 72,000/- which does not call for any interference and it is affirmed. 8. In the case at hand, appellant-claimant was 32 years of age on the date of accident as held by Tribunal. Learned Claims Tribunal has calculated annual income of appellant-claimant by adding 40% of established income in the assessed income of appellant-claimant for the purpose of calculating compensation, which cannot be said to be erroneous in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that addition of 40% of the established income of the appellant-claimant should be made towards future prospects where the appellant-claimant was below 40 years and not in permanent employment. Further, Tribunal assessed loss of earning capacity to the extent of 70% considering Disability Certified issued mentioning 90% permanent disability, evidence of Dr. P.K. Gupta, and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajkumar vs. Ajay Kumar reported in (2012) 10 SCC 177. Thereafter applied multiplier of 16, which cannot be said to be erroneous in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. 9. Learned Claims Tribunal has further appropriately awarded compensation of ₹ 5,46,969/- towards medical expenses based on the documents produced with regard to treatment in hospital, which in the opinion of this Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference as during course of argument learned counsel for appellant-claimant could not point out that the Tribunal fell into error in not considering any of the document towards medical expenses or escaped consideration of any such bill/ document while 5 / 5 assessing compensation under the head of medical expenses. Further, the Claims Tribunal has awarded ₹ 36,000/- towards loss of income during treatment period, ₹ 1,00,000 is awarded towards loss of amenities in life, ₹ 1,00,000 is awarded towards mental pain and sufferings, ₹ 67,200 is awarded towards attendant considering the period of treatment of 84 days, ₹ 30,000 is awarded towards conveyance expenses, ₹ 30,000 towards special diet and ₹ 50,000 is awarded towards future medical expenses. The amount awarded under the aforementioned heads cannot be said to be erroneous or on lower side, in the facts of the case. 10.
Decision
In view of the above discussion, learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding compensation of ₹ 20,89,129/- to the appellant- claimant, which is just and proper. 11. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly. pwn Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge