1 - Smt. Muasi Goyal W/o. Laikhan Goyal Aged About 42 Years R/o Khamargaon v. 1 - R. Ramkrishna S/o. R. Ramu Aged About 34 Years R/o. Shantinagar Near
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:14176 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 193 of 2020 1 - Smt. Muasi Goyal W/o. Laikhan Goyal Aged About 42 Years R/o Khamargaon Near Mandir Post Babusemra Police Station Nagarnar District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1 - R. Ramkrishna S/o. R. Ramu Aged About 34 Years R/o. Shantinagar Near Abraham Church Frezerpur Police Station Bodhghat District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Narmada Tiwari W/o. Premshankar Tiwari Aged About 50 Years R/o. Opposite Sethi Bhawan Motitalab Para Jagdalpur District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Vehicle), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Opposite Bhadouriya Bhawan Akaswani Road Jagdalpur District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani on behalf of Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2: None present though served BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.03.27 14:23:37 +0530 For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 25/03/2025 1. Claimant/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur, District – Bastar (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 26.11.2019 passed in Claim Case No.104/2019 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.2,35,200/- as compensation in an injury case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 25.04.2018 at about 7.00 PM, appellant along with her family members were going to village Umargaon in Auto bearing registration No.C.G.-17-KM-0322, on the way near Borpadar turn, the respondent No.1, the driver of the bus bearing No.CG-17F 0478 by driving the bus rashly and negligently dashed the auto from backside, due to which the appellant suffered grievous injuries on her hand and chest and her chest ribs were fractured. She was taken to the Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur where she was admitted from 25.04.2018 to 27.04.2018. 3. Appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.10,49,000/- pleading therein that due to the accident, she suffered fracture on her chest ribs and sustained 20% permanent disablement. Due to the injury suffered, she was unable to do her daily work and wage work as before she was doing. It was pleaded that at the time of incident, she was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Appellant had also sought compensation under 3 all other heads as are available to her like medical expenses, special diet, future medical expenses, pain and sufferings etc. 4. Non-applicant Nos.1 & 2/driver and owner of offending vehicle, submitted reply and resisted the claim. It was pleaded that the accident was the result of contributory negligence. Respondent No.1 was having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. The vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.3 and there was no breach of policy condition. Amount of compensation as claimed by appellant is highly exaggerated. It was pleaded that in case, claimant is entitled for compensation, then respondent No.3 shall be liable to pay the compensation. 5. Non-applicant No.3-Insurer of offending vehicle, submitted reply to claim application, while denying the pleadings made therein, has further pleaded that the incident was occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of auto driver. There is non-joinder of parties. The offending vehicle was running in violation of condition of insurance policy, hence, insurance company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 6. Upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, learned Claims Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1, due to which the appellant suffered injuries. Breach of Policy condition was not found to be proved. Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.2,35,200/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, fastened liability upon non-applicant No.3- Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation. 7. Learned counsel for appellant submits that Tribunal erred in awarding 4 meager amount of compensation. It is submitted that learned Claims Tribunal failed to consider the evidence brought on record regarding the income of deceased and erroneously assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.6000/- per month as notional income. He contended that the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have calculated the amount of compensation based on the Minimum Wages as fixed by the competent authority, however, the income of the deceased has been assessed only to the tune of Rs. 6,000/- on notational basis, which is on lower side. It is submitted that due to the accident, the appellant suffered fracture of her ribs and other parts of body and she sustained 20% permanent disablement, however, the learned Claims Tribunal failed to consider this fact, not awarding proper and suitable compensation towards pains and suffering and mental agony in favour of the appellant. He prays that amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation on each and every head. It is submitted that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is on proper appreciation of facts and evidence brought on record by the respective parties, which does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 and 2 are driver and owner and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. It is also 5 not in dispute that due to the accident, the appellant suffered grievous injuries on her body and liability to satisfy the compensation awarded by Tribunal is upon respondent No.3-Insurance Company. 11. Perusal of the record would show that on the date of incident, appellant was of age between 46 to 50 years, who suffered grievous injuries on her chest in the road accident and sustained 20% permanent disablement. It has come in evidence of the appellant that at the time of accident, appellant was working as labourer and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Though the appellant has failed to prove the nature of occupation and income, however, as per the notification issued by the Labour Commissioner-cum-Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, income of a labourer in between 01.04.2018 to 30.09.2018 has been fixed as Rs.7,800/- per month for ‘C’ class city. In the aforementioned facts of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, the income of the appellant can be taken as Rs.7,800/- per month for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. 12. Perusal of the impugned award would show that any amount towards future prospects has not been added by the Claims Tribunal. Since at the time of incident, the injured was of age between 46 to 50 years, suffered permanent disability therefore, as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the income is required to be enhanced by 25% towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.1950/- and thus the total monthly income of the injured comes to Rs.9,750/-. 13. There is no dispute with respect to disability of the appellant and 6 multiplier applied by the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards pains and suffering, which looking to the facts and circumstances of the case is required to be enhanced from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. As the appellant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 20%, she would not be able to enjoy the amenities of life as another normal person can. The disability suffered by her would also have an impact on her social and married life. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the appellant towards the loss of amenities in future life. It is ordered accordingly. 14. Accordingly, the income of the injured is taken Rs.9750/- (Rs.7,800/- + 1,950/-) and annual income of the injured comes to Rs.1,17,000/-. After applying multiplier of 13, the total income of the injured comes to Rs.15,21,000/-. As the disability suffered by the appellant is fixed as 20%, the compensation has to be calculated by apportioning to 20% disability and accordingly total compensation under the head of loss earning capacity works out to Rs.3,04,200/-. Thus amount under the head of loss of income is enhanced from Rs.1,87,200/- to Rs.3,04,200/-. Likewise, the appellant shall be entitled for a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering instead of Rs.15,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The amount of Rs.8000/- towards attendant, Rs.5,000/- towards special diet and Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses awarded by the Tribunal shall remain as it is. 15. On the basis of above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :- 7 S.N. Head Amount. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 5. Loss of income : Rs.3,04,200.00 For attendant : Rs. 08,000.00 (maintained) For special diet : Rs. 05,000.00 (maintained) For pain and suffering : Rs. 25,000.00 (enhanced) For loss of amenities : Rs. 20,000.00 For future medical expenses : Rs. 20,000.00 (maintained) Total Compensation : Rs.3,82,200.00 16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,82,200.00. Any amount paid to the appellant as compensation as per award shall be adjusted. Amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. 17.
Decision
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram