Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:17932 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 304 of 2020 1 - Sobrati Khan S/o Ismile Khan Aged About 25 Years Caste Muslim, Occupation Soler Light Mechanic , Presently Unemployed, R/o Runpurkhurd, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur , District Surguja Chhattisgarh. versus --- Appellant 1 - Surendra Kumar Bhuiya S/o Tilak Ram Bhuiya Aged About 42 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Village Pauradhar, Ward No. 4, Police Station Pauradhar Chowki, Kali Mandir , Post Pauradhar, District Anuppur , Madhya Pradesh 2 - Shashikant Singh S/o Gajendra Narayan Singh Aged About 49 Years Occupation Pickup Vehicle Owner, R/o Kitab Ghar , Gandhi Stadium Complex Ambikapur , Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur , District Surguja Chhattisgarh...(Owner Of The Offending Pickup Cg-15-A-5674) 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Ambikapur , District Surguja Chhattisgarh.(Insurer Of The Offending Pickup Cg-15-A-5674) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant For Respondent No.2 For Respondent No.3 : : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.04.26 10:46:18 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 21/04/2025 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 Sixth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, Sarguja (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 29.11.2019 passed in Motor Accidents Claim Case No. 02/2019 thereby allowing application in part and awarded Rs.82,050/- as compensation in an injury case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 24.03.2017 at about 8.45 in the night, applicant along with Israfil and Kurban while they were standing near Ravi Petrol Pump, Ambikapur at that time, respondent No.1 by driving the pickup vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.-15-A-5674 in a rash and negligent manner dashed them and caused accident. In the said accident, middle third bone of right thigh broke in two pieces. The middle bone below the knee tibia fibula was also broken. He also suffered injuries on knee bowl, chest and left hand elbow. Appellant was immediately taken to the District Hospital, Ambikapur and thereafter he was admitted to Dr. Firdosi Hospital, Ambikapur from 09.04.2017 to 13.04.2017, where his right leg was operated and iron rod was inserted. 3. Appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.15,51,000/- pleading therein that due to the injuries suffered in the accident, his right leg has become weak. He is unable to do heavy work. Before the accident, he was working as Solar Electricity Mechanic (Electrician) under Solar Agency 3 Thanganpara, Ambikapur and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. On account of motor-accidental injuries, he is now unable to perform his work in the manner as he was doing prior to accident and thus suffered loss of income. Claimant has also sought compensation under all other heads as are available to him like medical expenses, special diet, future medical expenses, pain and sufferings etc. 4. Non-applicant No.2 owner of offending vehicle, submitted reply and resisted the claim. The happening of accident with the offending vehicle was denied. It was pleaded that offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.3 and the vehicle was being driven by the respondent No.1 who was having valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. 5. Non-applicant No.3-Insurer of offending vehicle, submitted reply to claim application and while denying the pleadings made therein has pleaded that the accident occurred due to the collision between two vehicles i.e. offending pick-up and the motorcycle and the motor cycle was driven in breach of condition of insurance policy. The claim application was filed based on false facts and grounds in order to get compensation. Non-applicant No.1-driver was not having valid and effective driving license, there was breach 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, the learned Claims Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle i.e. non-applicant No.1, due to which the appellant suffered 4 injuries. Breach of Policy condition was not found to be proved. Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.82,050/- along with interest @ 7% 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 meager amount of compensation overlooking the nature of injuries suffered, occupation and income as pleaded in the claim application and as proved by applicant’s witnesses. He also contended that amount of compensation under the head of conveyance and special diet is also on lower side as also the amount awarded towards loss of earning during laid down period. He prays that amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 8. Learned counsel for respective respondents supports the impugned award and would submit that the amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal in the facts of the case and the evidence available on record, is just and proper. They contended that appellant failed to prove the nature of his occupation and income, further appellant has not suffered permanent disability, therefore, also in the facts of the case, it cannot be said that the amount of compensation awarded is disproportionate. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. So far as the submission of learned counsel for appellant with respect to assessment of income is concerned, the learned Claims Tribunal on appreciation of evidence brought on record (oral and documentary) 5 has arrived at a conclusion that appellant failed to prove his nature of occupation to be electrician and the income of Rs.8,000/- per month. Perusal of the record would show that appellant has examined himself as AW-1. No other witness has been examined to prove the fact that appellant was working as electrician on the date of accident. No document has been submitted showing the income of the appellant. In the aforementioned facts of the case I am of the view that the learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in disbelieving the pleadings and statement of the appellant with respect to the nature of occupation and income and treating the appellant to be unskilled labourer. However, in the aforementioned facts of the case, learned Claims Tribunal is not justified in assessing the income of the appellant as Rs.4,500/- per month of an able bodied person aged about 25 years. If for any reason, the claimant failed to prove his income by producing reliable and cogent piece of evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed the income on notional basis, it is the duty of the learned Claims Tribunal/Court to consider the the date of accident, the price index, wage structure prevailing within the state or the place of residence and the claims learned Claims Tribunal could have also taken note of the minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages, Act. 11. In the case at hand, as the appellant failed to prove his nature of occupation and his income, therefore, occupation of appellant would be considered as unskilled labourer for the purpose of computation of income and compensation. As there is no specific proof of income I find it appropriate to consider the minimum wages fixed by the 6 competent authority within the State of Chhattisgarh for unskilled labourer, semiskilled labourer and skilled labourer. As the learned Claims Tribunal has held the appellant to be unskilled labourer, which cannot be said to be erroneous. The income of the deceased in the opinion of this Court would be Rs.7,800/- per month as fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act for unskilled labourer. It is ordered accordingly. 12. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded loss of income during laid down period for two months. It is undisputed fact that appellant suffered fracture of middle third of right femur and fracture of tibia fibula bone of the right leg. In the aforementioned facts of the case, where the appellant suffered two fractures on one leg and also considering the part of the leg where the appellant suffered fracture I am of the view that appellant could not be able to work for period of three months and earn his livelihood, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, appellant is entitled for loss of income for a period of three months, instead of two months as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. 13. As the income of the appellant is assessed as Rs.7,800/- per month, hence, the appellant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.23,400/- towards of loss of income during laid down period for three months. It is ordered accordingly. The amount of compensation awarded under the head of special diet awarded of Rs.5,000/- is also on lower side, looking to the nature of injury I find it appropriate to award Rs.10,000/- towards special diet. 14. Learned Claims Tribunal though had recorded a finding that appellant 7 suffered grievous injuries, however, no amount of compensation is awarded under that head, the nature of grievous injury suffered by appellant will have its impact over the whole life of appellant, though the appellant failed to prove the permanent disability due to said injury, however, considering the nature of injury suffered I find it appropriate to award Rs.25,000/- towards the grievous injuries suffered by him (fracture of middle third femur and fracture of tibia fibula bone). The amount of Rs.39,450/- towards treatment, Rs.3000/- for attendant, Rs.600/- towards conveyance and Rs.25,000/- towards pains and suffering awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is maintained. 15. On the basis of above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :- S.N. Head Amount. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. For treatment : Rs. 39,450.00 Loss of income for three months : Rs. 23,400.00 (Rs.7800x3) For attendant : Rs. 3,000.00 For Transportation : Rs. 600.00 For special diet : Rs. 10,000.00 For pain and suffering : Rs. 25,000.00 For grievous injuries : Rs. 25,000.00 Total Compensation : Rs.1,26,450.00 8 16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,26,450.00. Any amount paid to the appellant as compensation as per award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7% 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