Dantewada, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Manoj Mandavi S/o Mani Lal Mandavi Aged About 24 Years R/o Village
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2025:CGHC:24969 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 439 of 2018 1 - Naresh Yadav S/o Late Sudama Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Malappa Camp, House No.265, Kirandul P.O. Kirandul Tahsil Kuakonda, District South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh (Claimant), District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Manoj Mandavi S/o Mani Lal Mandavi Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Bhatoli P.S. Pakhanjur District Kanker, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Vehicle), District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
Legal Reasoning
2 - Deepak Kumar Gain S/o Shri K.P.Gain R/o Type 3/79 Subhash Nagar Bacheli District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle), District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited Issue Office 10003- E-8 Rico Industrial Area Sitapur-Jaipur Pin 302022 State Rajasthan India (Insurer Of The Vehicle), District : Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2 ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 3 : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17/06/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant/claimant for enhancement against the award dated 16.08.2017 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dantewada District – South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 02/15 whereby compensation of Rs. 2,52,968/- with interest @ 9% per annum, in favour of the appellant/claimant has been awarded. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 18.05.2014 at about 3:30 PM, while the appellant/claimant was returning home from Bacheli with his friends. A truck bearing registration no. CG-04-J/6669, driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1, came from the opposite direction and collided with the appellant’s vehicle, causing him grievous injuries. He was initially treated at BIOM Hospital, Kirandul,. Thereafter, the appellant/claimant referred to Maharani Hospital, and subsequently shifted to Shri Ram Krishna Care Hospital, Raipur for better treatment. The respondent No.1 3 did not file a reply and was proceeded ex parte. The respondent No. 2 has filed a reply denying the claim but admitted the vehicle was insured, submitting that any liability would lie with the Insurance Company. The respondent No. 3 (the insurer) contended that the claim was exaggerated, alleged violation of policy conditions, and stated that the driver lacked a valid driving license, seeking exoneration from liability. . The age of the appellant/claimant was 36 to 40 years. Therefore, the appellant/claimant preferred an application to claim a total compensation of Rs. 21,20,000/-. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has erred to hold the monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 4,500/- whereas he has been a laborer. Therefore, his income should be calculated appropriately and future prospects should also be calculated. Similarly, the disability certificate Exhibit A-41 was issued by the Medical Board to the extent of 47%, but the Tribunal held the disability of the appellant to the extent of 25%. The disability certificate issued by the Medical Board has been proved by Dr. L.L. Thakur. The loss of future income has only been assessed to Rs. 13,500/- by the tribunal, therefore, the reduction in his income should be estimated at 25% and the awarded amount on the other 4 heads is also on the lower side. Regarding the treatment expenses, he has produced a bill of more than Rs. 50,000/- but only Rs. 42,968/- has been awarded on that account and he was admitted in the hospital. The amount on the head of loss of income, nutritious food, attendant and travel expenses has not been awarded. Hence, this appeal may be allowed and needs to be enhanced suitably. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 opposes the same. 5. No one has appeared on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 8. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 5 9. In the case in hand, the income of the appellant has not been proved by any documentary evidence. The appellant is said to have a labourer and was aged about 36 to 40 years at the time of accident and his monthly income is taken as Rs 4,500/- by the tribunal. According to the guidelines issued by the Labor Department, the minimum wages for unskilled labour was Rs 5,468/- at the time of accident i.e. 18.05.2014. In such a situation, it is found appropriate to take the monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 5,468/- instead of Rs. 4,500/-. 10. The annual income comes to Rs. 65,616/- per annum. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 after adding 40% towards future prospects i.e. Rs. 26,246/-, the annual income comes to Rs. 91,862/-. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Kumar v. Ajaj Kumar and another, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343, regarding lack of earning capacity in the case of permanent disability, has held in para 10 as under: “10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the 6 effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earnings capacity. ……..” 12. Applying the aforesaid principles in the case in hand, in my opinion, the Tribunal on Exhibit A-41, the certificate of permanent disability issued by the concerned Medical Board to the extent of 47% has rightly assessed the permanent disability of the claimant regarding his whole body as 25% approximately, as stated by Dr. L.L. Thakur (AW-2), who has examined the claimant. 13. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 considering the age of the deceased, after applying multiplier of 15, the total loss of dependency works out to Rs. 13,77,930/-. the reduction in earning capacity is 47% i.e. Rs. 6,47,627/-. 14. Considering the injuries sustained by the appellant the loss of dependency towards Rs. 6,47,627/-, Rs. 5,000/- towards attender, Rs. 3,000/- towards special diet, Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony has been awarded. 7 Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 6,75,627/- has been awarded in favor of the appellant. 15.
Decision
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 4,22,659/- (6,75,627-2,52,968) in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 16. The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimants in writing about “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi (Deonagri) language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with co-ordination of Secretary, State Legal Services Authority and the DLSA of the concerned area where the claimants resides. 17. Record of the tribunal be sent back along with copy of this order forthwith for necessary information and action. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat