1 - The Divisional Manager And Office The New India Insurance (Correct Name Assurance) v. 1 - Ajay Kumar Tripathi S/o Late K.K. Tripathi Aged About 39 Years R/o
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:33148 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 638 of 2025 1 - The Divisional Manager And Office The New India Insurance (Correct Name Assurance) Company Limited, Korba D.O., Sada Complex, Transport Nagar Korba, District - Korba Chhattisgarh Policy No. 46020031210200004552 Period From Dated 04.09.2021 To 03.09.2022 (Insurer Of Alto Car Bearing Registration No. C.G. A.N. 9022) (Non-Applicant No. 3) --- Appellant versus 1 - Ajay Kumar Tripathi S/o Late K.K. Tripathi Aged About 39 Years R/o Asha Niwas, Vrindanagar Camp 1, Ward No. 29, Police Station - Chavni-Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh (Claimant) 2 - Anil Kumar David S/o H.B. David Aged About 73 Years R/o Village - Salhetola, Post - Kurutola, Tahsil - Charama, District - Kanker Chhattisgarh (Vehicle Driver Of Auto Maruti Car No. C.G. 12/a.N./9022) (Non-Applicant No. 1) 3 - Monika David D/o Rajesh Kumar David R/o Ward No. 17, Podiuproda, Katghora - Korba, District - Korba Chhattisgarh (Vehicle Owner Of Auto Maruti Car No. C.G. 12/a.N./9022) (Non-Applicant No. 2) --- Respondents For Appellant : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No. 1
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Vikash Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 15/07/2025 1. Appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) challenging the impugned award dated 03.12.2024, passed in Claim Case No.209 BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.23 10:52:27 +0530 2 of 2022, whereby the learned 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) has awarded compensation of Rs.7,66,045/- to the claimants in an injury case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that a claim application was filed by the applicant/claimant claiming compensation of Rs.41,43,000/- as against the injury suffered by him in the road accident. It was pleaded that on 03.10.2021, the applicant was travelling as occupant in a I-20 Car bearing registration number MP- 66C-5728, along with P. Ramalu and Vishnu Thakur. The vehicle was being driven by Shambhu Prasad Kushwaha. At about 1:00 PM, when they reached near Central Avenue Road, Sector-4, Bhilai, the offending Alto car bearing registration number CG-12-AN-9022, driven by Non-Applicant No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, collided with their vehicle. As a result of the impact, the I-20 car lost control and dashed against a tree, due to which claimant/applicant sustained serious head injuries and a fracture in his left shoulder. He was immediately taken to Section 9 BSP Hospital, Bhilai, and was subsequently referred to Sparsh Multispeciality Hospital, Ram Nagar, Bhilai, where he remained admitted from 03.10.2021 to 06.10.2021. It was further pleaded that at the time of accident, claimant was 38 years of able bodied person working as mason and due to the injuries suffered in the accident he is no longer able to perform his work as he did prior to the incident. 3. Non-applicant No.1 and 2 jointly filed their reply denying the averments made in the claim application. It was pleaded that claim 3 application was filed on the false and fabricated grounds exaggerating the amount of compensation. The vehicle was duly insured with non- applicant No.3 and at the time of accident non-applicant No.1 was having valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle. Non- applicant No.3 also filed its reply denying the averments made in the application. Non-applicant No.1 was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle and there was breach of conditions of insurance policy. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.7,66,045/- and fastened the liability upon non-applicant No.3/ Insurance Company to indemnify the insured. 5. Learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company submits that this appeal is filed primarily on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant on higher side. She also contended that though the claimant has submitted disability certificate (Ex.P-31) mentioning 15% of the permanent disability, however, learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing loss of income of claimant as 25%. She also submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding 10% of the assessed income towards disability which is not sustainable as the Claims Tribunal has already considered the claim towards loss of income due to disability. 6. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper, which does not call for any interference. 4 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 also supports the impugned award. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the claim case. 9. Perusal of the documents of treatment enclosed by the claimant along with claim case would show that claimant/appellant suffered head injuries in road traffic accident, fracture dislocation in left shoulder (fracture of greater tuberocity). Injuries suffered by claimant in the motor accident appears to be very grievous in nature as is reflecting from Ex.P-13, discharge-summary of Sparsh Multispeciality Hospital. Doctor has issued the disability certificate (Ex.P-31) mentioning 15% of permanent disability in the left shoulder. Dr. S.D. Bhupendra is examined as AW-2 to prove the disability certificate. In his evidence he stated that claimant approached him for the disability certificate. He examined him, got x-ray and found that moment on the shoulder of claimant/applicant is reduced, there was deformity and the muscles of the shoulder had become weak and joint of the left shoulder had stuck. He found 15% permanent disability. In his evidence he stated that the disability certificate issued is for the whole body. In the evidence of the claimant (AW-1), it has come that he was working as mason under contractor and he was being paid Rs.13,000/- per month. But after the motor accidental injuries, he is unable to do the work of mason. He is unable to move his left hand properly. Similar is the pleadings made in the claim application. From the aforementioned facts of the case and evidence of doctor (A.W.-2) and further even if the occupation as pleaded in the claim application is not to be considered in absence of 5 specific evidence/proof then also the occupation of the claimant can be assessed to be one of the labourer. For doing the work of labourer also, a person requires all parts of body to be healthy and in working condition. Use of both the hands for laboure is much more required as he has to do all kind of work including lifting of weight, digging etc. If the laboure suffered permanent disability, even if 15% on shoulder, and one of his hand including shoulder is not working with full capacity then definitely labourer may suffer loss of income much more than that of the percentage of disability as mentioned in the disability certificate issued by the doctor, which is for whole body. For awarding compensation under the head of loss of income, the tribunal is required to consider the nature of occupation, part of the body and how the permanent disability suffered by the claimant on the part of the body will affect his occupation and his income. Considering the entirety of the facts of the case evidence available on record, particularly disability certificate, discharge summary mentioning the nature of injuries and the evidence of doctor (AW-2), who issued the disability certificate I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that due to permanent disability suffered by claimant on his left shoulder will affect his earning to the extent of 25%, therefore, considered the loss of earning to the extent of 25%. For the foregoing discussion, the first submission of learned counsel for the appellant that learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing loss of earning more than the percentage of permanent disability as mentioned in the disability certificate is not sustainable and accordingly it is repelled. 10. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that 6 learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of claimant as Rs.9,800/- per month instead of Rs.7,900/- is concerned, perusal of the record would show that claimants have pleaded in the claim application his income as Rs.13,000/- per month as wages from contractor with whom he was working. Pleading with regard to income could not be proved by bringing clinching evidence before the learned Claims Tribunal. Learned Claims Tribunal in absence of specific evidence has decided to assess the income of claimant notionally and assessed the income as Rs.9,800/- per month. The date of accident is 03.10.2021 as per minimum wages fixed by the competent authority for Zone-A area of unskilled labour in between 01.10.2021 to 31.03.2022 is Rs.9,800/- per month. In view of the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority the income of the claimant of Rs.9,800/- cannot be said to be excessive, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for appellant in this regard is also repelled. 11. According to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sidram Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439 and in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, in case of permanent disability, the claimants are entitled for future prospects. As the age of the claimant is mentioned as 39 years, i.e. below 40 years, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have added 40% of established income, in which the Tribunal failed. 7 12. For the forgoing discussions, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned award. The appeal being sans merit, is liable to be and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram