Suraj Kumar Dhruw v. Uttam Kumar Satnami

: Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For respondents 1 & 2 : Mr. A. A. Laxmidhar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ali Asgar, Advocate For respondent no.3 : Mr. G.V.K. Rao, Advocate 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board

25.08.2026 1 This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed by the claimant (injured) seeking enhancement of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 07.01.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, (Chhattisgarh) in Claim Case No. 56 of 2019 whereby a total compensation of Rs. 6,34,254/- has been awarded for the damages caused to the appellant.

#2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the claim application are that on

19.06.2017 appellant Suraj Kumar Dhruv along with his friend Ramji Yadav was going to Lormi on motorcycle. On the way when they reached near Lachanpur, respondent no.1 driving the offending vehicle i.e.,Tractor No.C.G. 10-D 0358 in rash and negligent manner hit the motor cycle of Ramji Yadav, due to which, Ramji Yadav succumbed to injuries during treatment in CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur.. The appellant had also sustained grievous injuries on various parts of his body and his leg bone was fractured. He filed a claim petition seeking a total compensation of Rs.16,10,000/- lakhs on various heads.

#3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the income of claimant taken by the Tribunal is very meagre and further as per the disability certificate (Ex.P-6) the functional disability of the appellant was 90% whereas the Tribunal has considered only 50% disability, thereby the income lost has also been assessed on lower side. He further submits that the Tribunal has not granted any sum towards special diet, therefore, just compensation has not been awarded. He prays that the appeal be allowed and the award of compensation be suitably enhanced. 3

#4. Learned counsel for respondent no.3/Insurer submits that the disability certificate (Ex.A-6) was not issued by the competent Medical Board, therefore, the said certificate cannot be taken the basis while assessing the income lost due to disability. It is also submitted that in absence of any documentary evidence the income of deceased taken by the Tribunal cannot be said to be on lower side. He submits that the amounts granted under the other heads are also just and proper, which needs no interference.

#5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

#6. The Tribunal found that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1, as a result of which, the appellant who was travelling on the motor cycle has sustained grievous injuries. It further found that there was no contributory negligence on the part of rider of motorcycle. The tribunal also found that the offending tractor was not driven in breach of terms of insurance policy.

#7. To prove the functional disability, claimant has produced the certificate (Ex.P-6) which shows the disability to the extent of 90%. P.W.2 Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Sahu has proved the same stating that said certificate was issued by 3 doctors of District Hospital, Rajnandgaon. However, the Tribunal did not accept 90% functional disability and following the principle laid down by Supreme Court in Rajakumar Versus Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 a 50% reduction in future loss of income capacity is determined.

#8. The claimant pleaded that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing the job head-mason in building works. He did not produce any document to this effect. The Tribunal took the meagre income of Rs.3000/- per month treating him as unskilled labour, which is on lower side. In 4 absence of any documentary evidence and considering the prevalent market rates, it would be appropriate to take the income of claimant at Rs. 7930/- treating him as unskilled labour as per the Minimum Wages applicable in the State at the relevant time. Thus the annual income is worked out to Rs. 95,160/- (7930 x 12). The age of claimant was found to be 22 years. Following the principle laid down in Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 and in National Insurance Co. Versus Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) SCC Online SC 1270, the Tribunal has correctly added 40% future prospects to the income and applied the multiplier of 18. After adding 40% future prospects i.e., 38,064/-, the gross annual income comes to Rs.1,33,224/- (95,160 plus 38,064).

#9. in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 the Supreme Court ruled that the percentage of physical/medical disability cannot automatically be treated as the percentage of loss of earning capacity. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to reduce the physical disability from 90% to 50% loss of earning capacity is a standard legal approach in motor accident claims which cannot be said to be unsustainable. Hence, the annual loss of income capacity to the extent of 50% disability would come to Rs.66,612/-. Thus the total loss of future earning comes to Rs. 11,99,016/- by applying multiplier 18 (66,612 x multiplier 18).

#10. It was pleaded that the appellant was hospitalized from 21.06.2017 to

25.06.2017. He produced the medical bills and prescriptions vide Ex.P-7 to P- 46 amounting to Rs. 1,10,654/-. Since the entire expenses incurred for medical treatment was granted by Tribunal, a separate payment for loss of income during treatment for the above short period of 5 days was denied by the Tribunal, which cannot be said to be unreasonable.

#11. It appears that the Tribunal has not granted any sum for special diet or nutritious food though the appellant is entitled to get certain amount under 5 this head.

#12. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid discussion and in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680; Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343, this Court is computing the compensation as below : Sl.No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court

#1. Loss of future income 4,53,600/- Rs. 7930 X 12 = 95,160 plus Future Prospectus- 40% i.e., 38,064 = gross income annual 1,33,224/- 50% annual loss of earning capacity = Rs.66,612/-. Loss of future income is 66,612 x 18 multiplier = 11,99,016/-

#7. Treatment expenses 1,10,654/- 1,10,654/- Pain and suffering 20,000/- 20,000/- Attendant charges 20,000/- 20,000/- Transportation charges 10,000/- 10,000/- Future expenses Special diet Total treatment 20,000/- 20,000/- ….. 10,000/- 6,34,254/- 13,89,670/-

#13. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 6,34,254/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 13,89,670/- 6 Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.6,34,254/- the appellant is held entitled for an additional sum of Rs. 7,55,416/- The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

#14. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated hereinabove. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao