Kanker, Chhattisgarh v. 1. Dayaram, S/o Pradeep Kumar Bharti, R/o Village - Mouhgaon, PS Dharsiva, District Raipur
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:22883 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 884 of 2020 1. Makhan Patel, S/o Ramprasad Patel, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village - Chavad, Police Station - Narharpur, District - Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant-claimant versus 1. Dayaram, S/o Pradeep Kumar Bharti, R/o Village - Mouhgaon, PS Dharsiva, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Driver of Tata Maijik Vehicle Bearing No. C.G. - 04/ L V - 4965), 2. Thaneshwer Sahu S/o Dujram Sahu, R/o Parsuram Nagar, Professor Colony, Raipur (Near Gupta Kirana Stores) Police Station - Purani Basti, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Tata Maijik Vehicle Bearing No.CG 04/ L V - 4965), 3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through - In Charge Officer Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Shiv Mohan Pandari, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Tata Maijik Vehicle Bearing No. C.G. - 04/ L V – 4965). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant For Respondent No.3 : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate. Mr. Srishti Upadhyay, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 10/06/2025 1. Injured- appellant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation granted to him by learned 12th 2 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claims Tribunal' for short) vide award dated 31.8.2019 passed in Claim Case No.110/2018. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.12.2015 at about 4:30 p.m., when claimant/injured was returning home from Gangrel Dam, the vehicle bearing registration number CG04-LV-4965, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, dashed motorcycle of claimant due to which he fell from the motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries including fracture in left leg. Injured claimant filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.21,30,000/- on the ground that due to injuries sustained by him in the said accident, he has suffered permanent disability and he is unable to do any work as he was doing prior to accident. After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the evidence adduced by the respective parties, the Claims Tribunal allowed the application of claimant, awarded total compensation of Rs.4,85,720/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization and fastened liability jointly and severally upon non-applicants to satisfy the award. 3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is meager. The Claims Tribunal has assessed permanent disability of 3 appellant to the extent of 20% only overlooking the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board mentioning that appellant has suffered 56% permanent disability. He next contended that the Claims Tribunal has assessed monthly income of appellant at Rs.6000/- only, which is on lower side in view of date of accident i.e. 10.12.2015. The amount of compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side. Hence, he prays for the enhancement of the compensation suitably. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 opposes the submissions of learned counsel for appellant and submits that the Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation which does not call for any interference. The Claims Tribunal recorded specific finding that 56% disability, as mentioned in disability certificate, is with respect to the part of the body and not for the whole body. Hence, assessment of permanent disability by the Claims Tribunal to the extent of 20% for the purpose of determination of loss of future income is correct. He next contended that income of appellant assessed by the Claims Tribunal is in consonance with minimum wage fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the period during which accident occurred. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4 6. For the purpose of awarding compensation to a victim, who suffers permanent or temporary disablement, the tribunal / Court shall make an effort to award just and adequate compensation considering the extent of effect of permanent disability on actual earning capacity. In the present case, considering the nature of disability, even though it was 56% of the left lower limb as mentioned in disability certificate, and nature of employment i.e. Mason, as pleaded by claimant, in the considered opinion of this Court, the finding of Claims Tribunal fixing the disability to the extent of 20% cannot be said to be erroneous warranting interference and accordingly it is hereby affirmed. 7. As regards the assessment of income, as per pleadings made and evidence adduced by the claimant, he was working as a Mason and earning Rs.9,000/-, however, he failed to prove his occupation and income therefrom. In absence thereof, the Claims Tribunal taking into consideration the nature of work of deceased pleaded and stated by claimants treated him as skilled labourer and assessed income of deceased as Rs.6,000/- on notional basis. Deceased was resident of District Dhamtari, which falls within ‘C’ Zone category and accident occurred on 10.12.2015. The minimum wage rate for an skilled labourer of a ‘B’ grade city of the State prescribed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for 5 the period 1.10.2015 to 31.3.2016 was Rs.6,302/-. Hence, fixation of Rs.6,000/- as monthly income of appellant to assess loss of income in the given facts of the case is on lower side. Hence, on the basis of minimum wage fixed by Competent Authority under the Act of 1948 for the period during which accident occurred, this Court fixes monthly income of appellant at Rs.6,302/- and as such, the loss of income during laid down period comes out to be Rs.1,26,040/- (6302x20). It is ordered accordingly. 8. In view of enhancement of monthly income of appellant and percentage of permanent disability, the loss of future earning capacity requires to be recomputed. The loss of future earning capacity would thus come to Rs.1,36,123/- (6302 x 12 x 9 x 20%). Hence, it is ordered that appellant will be entitled for a sum of Rs.1,36,123/- for loss of future earning capacity. 9. Perusal of the medical documents brought on record reveals that appellant has suffered fracture injury of distal femur RI (conduler + intercondyler + supracondyler and open reduction and internal fixation with double plat with bone grafting was done on 12.12.2017. Medical documents further reveals that there was puss formation due to infection in wound and therefore a surgery was performed on 6.1.2018 to remove the same. The Claims Tribunal considering entirety of the evidence has held that appellant could not able to perform his 6 work for a period of 20 months, but awarded only Rs.15,000/- towards pain and sufferings; Rs.5000/- each towards special diet and attendant, which in the opinion of this Court is on lower side. Considering the nature of injuries and period of treatment undergone by appellant, I find it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.30,000/- for pains and sufferings; Rs.20,000/- towards attendant and Rs.15000/- towards special diet and Rs.20000/- towards his grievous injuries. 10. In view of above, claimant/appellant is now entitled for compensation as under;- HEADS : AMOUNT (In Rs.) Loss of future earning capacity : 1,36,123=00 (6302x12x9x20%) Medical expenses For attendant For pain and sufferings For special diet For transportation For loss of income For grievous injuries : : : : : : : Total: 1,98,670=00 15,000=00 30,000=00 15,000=00 12,000=00 1,26,040=00 20,000=00 5,52,833=00 11. Now, claimant/appellant is held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.5,52,833/- in place of Rs.4,85,270/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. This amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of application. Any amount disbursed to appellant pursuant to impugned award will be adjusted from the amount of compensation as awarded 7 above. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. roshan/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI