Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:22882 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 953 of 2020 1 - Smt. Radha Nag S/o Durjan Nag Aged About 50 Years R/o Aghanpur Tetarkhuti Jagdalpur, Police Station Bodhghat, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh Versus ... Appellant 1 - Saharyar Khan S/o Firoz Khan Aged About 29 Years R/o Abdul Kalam Ward Khan Gali Near Kendriya Vidyalaya Kumhaarpara Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. (Driver/ Owner Of The Offending Vehicle), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Through The Branch Manager The Ifko Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited, Silver Plaza Third Floor Ring Road No.01 In Front Of Mining Office Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Vikash A Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate along with Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 10/06/2025 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 14.02.2020 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, District – Bastar (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 177/2019. SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 12.02.2017 at about 05:30 P.M., when the applicant along with her husband was walking beside the road at Village Bilori, Bhatiguda, at that time, the offending vehicle i.e Jeep bearing registration no. CG 17 KL 9597 which was being driven by the Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the appellant from behind and caused accident. In the said accident, appellant suffered serious injuries and she was taken to hospital for treatment. Subsequent to the said accident, an F.I.R. was registered at Police Station – Frazerpur (Parpa). 3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre amount of compensation to the appellant/claimant. The learned Claims Tribunal though have assessed that the appellant suffered 70% permanent disability due to the amputation of the right leg below the knee and proved the Disability Certificate (Ex. P/29) by examining Dr. L.L. Thakur (AW-3), had assessed loss of earning only 70% and not 100%. The learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant as Rs. 5,000/- only overlooking the date of accident and nature of occupation which, in the facts of the case is on lower side. He also submits that on the date of accident, minimum-wages fixed by the competent authority for Unskilled Labourer is much more than what has been assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal. Tribunal fell into error by awarding meagre amount of compensation on the other heads. Hence, the amount of compensation may suitably be enhanced. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2/Insurance company vehemently opposes the submission made by the counsel for the appellant and would submit that the Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded just amount of compensation in the facts of the case. The 3 learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation under all the heads for which, the appellant is entitled. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the claim case. 6. So far as the submission of the counsel for the appellant with regard to the income assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal is concerned, the learned Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that the appellant/claimant failed to produce the nature of occupation and the income of the appellant by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence. Even if, the appellant failed to prove the nature of occupation and the income of the appellant/claimant, it is for the Tribunal or the Court to assess the income of the claimants/deceased keeping in mind the factors like price index, age of the deceased/claimants, cost of living, date of accident, wage structure prevailing in the area where the claimant/deceased is residing and can also take the help of the minimum-wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 7. In the case at hand, as the appellant/claimant failed to prove the income by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, in the opinion of this Court, it will be appropriate to take the help of the minimum-wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 on the date of accident. Accident is dated 12.02.2017. According to the notification issued by the competent authority, the minimum wages for the Unskilled Labourer is Rs. 7,800/- per month. Accordingly, considering the appellant to be a Labourer, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the appellant as Rs. 7,800/- per 4 month for the purpose of computing the amount of compensation. It is ordered accordingly. 8. The learned Claims Tribunal has also not added the loss of future prospects to the assessed income of the appellant which, in the opinion of this Court is erroneous. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sidram Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr. reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439 has held that in case of permanent disability also, there shall be addition of the percentage of income towards the future prospects and held thus:- “31. It is now a well-settled position of law that even in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future prospects as well. We have come across many orders of different tribunals and unfortunately affirmed by different High Courts, taking the view that the claimant is not entitled to compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. That is not a correct position of law. There is no justification to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading is illogical because it denies altogether the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in accident cases — and 5 admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim's death.” 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandramani Nanda Vs. Sarat Chandra Swain & Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2859 while considering the award of compensation towards the future prospects in the case of permanent disability has held that the claimant who suffer the permanent disability is also entitled for the loss of future prospects and held thus:- “14.2 On the point of assessment of functional disability as 100% by the High Court as against 60% by the Tribunal, there is no challenge by the insurance company. 14.3 However, the Tribunal and the High Court both have failed to consider the fact that the appellant is also entitled for enhancement on account of future prospects. Hence, in line with the law laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi10, given the age of appellant was 32 years at the time of accident, he is entitled to 40% future prospects.“ In view of the aforementioned decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that where the injured/claimant suffered permanent disability, there should be addition of loss of future prospects based on the age of the deceased as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Claimant will also be entitled for compensation towards loss of future prospects. On the date of accident, the claimant/appellant was aged about 50 years and therefore, there shall be addition of 25% towards future prospects. 25% of the monthly 6 income of Rs. 7,800/- would be Rs. 1950/- (7800 X 25/100). The total monthly income will come to Rs. 9750/- (7800 + 1950) and annual income will be Rs. 1,17,000/- (9750 X 12). 10. The assessment of the permanent disability and loss of earning has not been challenged by the respondents and therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that the appellant suffered 70% permanent disability affecting the loss of income to the extent of 70% does not call for any interference. Hence, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that the appellant suffered 70% permanent disability affecting the loss of income to the extent of 70% is hereby affirmed. The appellant is aged about 50 years and therefore, the multiplier of 13 as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 would be applicable, which makes the total income of the deceased as Rs. 15,21,000/- (1,17,000 X 13). As this Court has assessed the loss of earning of the appellant to the extent of 70% and therefore, the 70% of the loss of income would come to Rs. 10,64,700/- (70% of 15,21,000). 11. The Learned Claims tribunal has awarded compensation under the head of loss of income during the laid down period as Rs. 10,000/- which in the facts of the case appears to be on the lower side. The appellant suffered amputation on her right leg below knee and therefore, she could not be able to do the work because of the wound of amputation on the right leg for a period of about 03 months and accordingly, the amount of compensation for the loss of income during the laid down period is assessed as Rs. 23,400/- (7800 X 3). Further, counsel for the appellant could not be able to point out the error in 7 assessing the compensation towards the medical expenses. He could not be able to point out that the learned Claims Tribunal has escaped consideration any of the medical bills placed and proved by the claimant/appellant and therefore, the award of compensation under the head of medical expenses does not call for any interference and it is affirmed. 12. Similarly, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards the future medical expenses as the appellant could not be able to point out from the record that the document or certificate issued by the doctor has been escaped consideration of the learned Claims Tribunal. The appellant suffered amputation on the right leg above knee, she belongs to the lower strata of family and is dependent upon the hands and legs for the purpose of earning his livelihood. As she suffered amputation on the right leg in her old age of 50 years, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the amount of compensation awarded under the head of pains and sufferings by the learned Claims Tribunal of Rs. 25,000/- is to be enhanced and it is accordingly, enhanced to Rs. 35,000/-. The amount of compensation awarded under the head of attendant is also on lower side, which is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- instead of Rs. 10,000/- and similarly, the amount of compensation awarded under the head of special diet is also enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- instead of Rs. 10,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. 13. The learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation towards the loss of amenities in life. As the appellant is a lady and had suffered amputation of right leg below knee, I am inclined to award Rs. 35,000/- towards the loss of amenities in life. 8 14. Now, the appellant/claimant will be entitled for the total amount of compensation as under:- • Rs. 12,03,100/- [10,64,700 (loss of income) + 23,400 (loss of income during laid down period) + 10,000 (future medical expenses) + 35,000 (pains and sufferings) + 20,000 (attendant) + 15,000 (special diet) + 35,000(loss of amenities in life)] 15. This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 16. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellant as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above.
Decision
17. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. 18. Certified copy as per rules. Dey Sd/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge