Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:33154 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1152 of 2019 1 - Rambhajan Sahu S/o Salikram Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Ward No. 03, Surujpurakala, Police Station Kunda, Tahsil Pandariya District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. (Claimant). versus --- Appellant 1 - The Manager Tata Motors Limited, 28 Floor, Centerl World Trade Certer, Cuff Parade, Mumbai (M.H.) 400001 (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle). 2 - Rajesh Kumar Das Tata Motors Limited, Dy. G.M. (Legal) Jamshedpur, District East, Singhbhum, Jharkhand (J.H.). 3 - Niwaran Nath S/o Rajendra Nath Aged About 46 Years R/o Mediya, Police Station Musabni, District West Sihbhum, Jharkhand, 832104 (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle), 4 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Main Branch - New Indian Insurance Building, 87 M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai (M.H.) Branch Office - Rama Trade Center, 2nd Floor, Rajeev Plaza, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle). _____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent No.3
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate …….Respondents. BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.21 11:01:39 +0530 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 10/07/2025 2 1. Claimant/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Kabirdham, District – Kabirdham (Kawardha) (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 22.11.2018 passed in Claim Case No.69/2017 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.3,26,932/- as compensation in an injury case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that a claim application U/s.166 of the Act, 1988 was filed by the appellant/injured seeking compensation of Rs.15,35,000/- against the injury suffered by him in the road accident pleading therein that on 24.02.2017, claimant was walking to Pandaria to get spare parts of tractor. When he reached near the plot of Ramkumar Chandrakar, non-applicant No.3, driver of a Tata vehicle bearing No. JH 05A/2362/R/17 came from behind driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the applicant and entered in the plot of Ramkumar Chandrakar. As a result of accident, the applicant suffered serious injuries in his both legs, hands, waist, and other parts of the body. He was initially taken to Government Hospital, Pandaria, however, looking to the severity of his condition, he was admitted to Radiance Hospital, Kabirdham. It was further pleaded that, at the time of accident, the applicant was a healthy and able- bodied 28-year-old man. He was engaged in gainful employment as a driver and was also doing agricultural activities, earning an annual income ranging between ₹2,50,000 and ₹3,00,000. The applicant suffered permanent disability in the accident. 3 3. Non-applicant No.1 and 2 did not appear before the Claims Tribunal and no reply was filed on their behalf. Non-applicant No.4/Insurance Company filed its reply to the claim application denying the pleadings made therein. It was pleaded that accident occurred due to self negligence of the applicant himself. Offending vehicle was plied in breach of policy condition. 4. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.3,26,932/- fastened the liability upon the non-applicants No.1, 3 and 4 jointly and severally. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the appellant/claimant as Rs.4,000/- per month only considering him to be the unskilled labourer. He contended that claimant in the claim application had categorically pleaded that he was working as driver, therefore, even if in absence of specific proof of income, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of claimant considering the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority for skilled labourer. He further contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding the medical expenses towards the medical bills i.e. Ex. A-22, A-23, A-29, A-34, A-37, and A-38 on the ground that the bills did not bear the signatures of the recipients of the amounts. He lastly contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the loss of income of appellant to the extent of 15% only, overlooking the nature of his occupation as pleaded that he was employed as a driver and, due to 4 the disability suffered, he is no longer able to drive, and therefore, he suffered 100% loss of earning capacity. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper, which does not call for any interference. He further contended that in absence of specific proof of occupation and income, learned Claims Tribunal is justified in assessing the income of the appellant on notional basis. He also contended that non-awarding medical expenses towards the bills as mentioned above is also correct because at the time of receiving the amount either in advance or towards payment of bills, normally recipient of bill amount put his signature. In other bills apart from bills referred above, it bears the signature of recipient of the amount. He submits that appellant failed to prove loss of earning more than 15%, as assessed by the Tribunal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of claim case. 8. So far as the first submission made by learned counsel for appellant with regard to assessment of income of appellant is concerned, admittedly the accident is of February, 2017. Though the claimant have pleaded his occupation to be driver of tractor, however he has not examined, the employer/owner of the tractor in support of his claim nor submitted any salary certificate or documents to prove the income as pleaded in claim application. In the aforementioned facts of the case in absence of clinching evidence learned Claims Tribunal justified in disbelieving the pleadings and the self serving oral statement that 5 applicant was employed as driver of tractor, which cannot be said to be erroneous, hence, the said submission of learned counsel for the appellant that claimant was employed as driver is not acceptable and accordingly it is repelled. With regard to income, no documentary evidence has been produced, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Claims Tribunal justified in taking recourse to assess the income of the claimant on notional basis treating him to be labourer. However, erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month only. In absence of proof of income, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration factors like rise in price index, place of resident, date of accident and the wages prevailing at the place where deceased was resident of. The learned Claims Tribunal could have also taken help of minium wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. 9. In the case at hand, there is no suggesting piece of evidence to prove the wages paid on the date of accident at the place where the applicant/claimant is resident of. Hence, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased treating him to be labourer taking help of the minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for that period. The minimum wages of unskilled labour of C- Zone city is fixed by the authority for the period from 01.10.2016 to 31.03.2017 as Rs.6,206/- per month. Hence, the income of the claimant is assessed as Rs.6,206/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 10. Perusal of the impugned award would show that any amount towards 6 future prospects has not been awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sidram Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439 has settled the law with respect to grant of future prospects in case of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor accident. As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, in case where victim of road accident is below 40 years of age on the date of accident, 40% of assessed income is to be added towards future prospects. In the case at hand, at the time of incident, the injured was 28 years of age, hence, the income is required to be enhanced by 40% towards future prospects. It is ordered accordingly. 11. As the income of the injured is assessed as Rs.6,206/- per month, hence, after addition of 40% towards future prospects, the total monthly income of the injured comes to Rs.8,400/- (6,206 + 2,482 = 8,688) and annual income of the injured works out to Rs.1,04,256/-. The injured was 22 years of age at the time of accident, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 17. Accordingly, after applying the multiplier of 17, the total income of the injured comes to Rs.17,72,352/- 12. So far as the submission of learned counsel for appellant that learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the loss of income to the extent of 15% only is concerned, the claimant has examined Dr. B.N. Thakur as A.W.-1, who is neither treating nor the doctor who has issued the 7 disability certificate. In his evidence also there is no specific averment that claimant could not be able to perform the work of driver, even no such question is posed to doctor by claimant. In absence of any such evidence and further that claimant has not produced copy of driving license, submission of learned counsel for appellant that due to disability suffered by him, appellant could not able to perform the work of driver is not sustainable and accordingly it is repelled. Learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing the compensation considering that appellant suffered loss of earning to the extent of 15%. 13. The loss of earning due to disability suffered by the appellant is held to the extent of 15%, therefore, compensation has to be calculated in that proportion and accordingly compensation under the head of loss of future earning works out to Rs.2,65,852/-. 14. So far as the other grounds raised by learned counsel for appellant that entire medical claim has not been awarded, perusal of the bills Ex.A-22 would show that it is in the name of claimant as inpatient, there is deposit of Rs.11,000/- advance amount which bears the signature. Similarly in Ex.A-23 also advance amount of Rs.4,000/- was deposited and it also bears the signature. The aforementioned bills are of the advance amount. The claimant has not submitted final bill prepared by the hospital to appreciate the submission that the bill or money deposited by claimant as advance have not been adjusted in the final bill. In absence of such evidence, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in not awarding the amount towards medical expenses as mentioned in Ex.A-22 and Ex.A-23. 15. Similarly, bill Ex.A-34 and Ex.A-35 is bill of Mark Hospital, which bears 8 the seal and signature of recipient. Appellant took treatment from Mark Hospital. In the bill (Ex.P-35) there is mention of total amount of Rs.60,000/- of which the amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid by Ex.P-34, which was deducted. The learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding the amount of bill (Ex.P-35) of Rs.60,000/-, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the claimant is entitled for the amount of Rs.60,000/- as mentioned in the bill (Ex.A-35). 16. Learned Claims Tribunal has only awarded Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, which in the opinion of this Court looking to the nature of injuries and period of treatment is on lower side therefore, I find it appropriate to enhance the said amount from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. Learned Claims Tribunal has only awarded Rs.3,000/- towards special diet, which is enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. Claimant will be further entitled for Rs.3,000/- towards conveyance expenses, Rs.3,000/- towards attendant and further Rs.15,000/- towards loss of amenities in life. Appellant is entitled for total amount of Rs.2,50,532/- towards medical expenses (Rs.1,90,532/- as awarded by Claims Tribunal + Rs.60,000/- as awarded by this Court towards medical expenses incurred as per Ex.A-35). 17. Claimant will further be entitled for loss of earning during period of treatment. From the document filed before the Claims Tribunal and exhibited, it is appearing from the document (Ex.A-11) that appellant was admitted in Radiance Hospital from 24.02.2017 to 07.03.2017 and vide Ex.A-44 admitted in Mark hospital from 25.05.2017 to 31.05.2017. There are medical prescription showing continuous treatment from 9 March 2017 till May, 2017. In the aforementioned facts of the case, nature of injuries, multiple fracture injuries including butterfly fracture of shaft femur left, I am of the opinion that the claimant could not able to work for four months, hence, I find it appropriate to award compensation towards loss of income during period of treatment for four months, which comes to Rs.6,206 x 4 = Rs.24,824/-. It is ordered accordingly. 18. On the basis of above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :- S.N. Head Amount. (Rs) 1. Loss of income 2. Medical expenses 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. For pain and suffering For special diet For conveyance For attendant Loss of treatment income during For loss of amenities Total Compensation : : : : : : : : : 2,65,852.00 2,50,532.00 15,000.00 5,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 24,824.00 15,000.00 5,82,208.00 19.
Decision
Accordingly both the appeal is allowed in part. The applicant/injured shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs. 5,82,208.00. Any amount paid to the appellant/injured as compensation as per award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of application till its 10 realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 20. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram