• Jaiprakash S/o Manoranjan Das Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Father v. 1. Dwarika Prasad Chandrabanshi @ Champaji S/o Bikau Prasad Aged About 50 Years R/o
Case Details
1 / 9 2025:CGHC:27597 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1317 of 2019 • Jaiprakash S/o Manoranjan Das Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Manoranjan Das) R/o Village - Bhithikala, Police Station and Tahsil - Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh --- Appellant- Applicant/Claimant versus 1. Dwarika Prasad Chandrabanshi @ Champaji S/o Bikau Prasad Aged About 50 Years R/o Village - Bhadashi Police Station And District Arwal (Bihar) Pin - 824101. (Driver) 2. Harishankar Singh S/o Awadhesh Singh Through - A-2b Enterprises Shop No. 210 Shyampuri Squire Pandari Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner) 3. The Branch Manager The United India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Krishna Complex Jail Road Kachahari Chowk Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Through Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd. Division Office Near Kumkum Hotal Brahm Road Nagar Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ____________________________________________________________ --- Respondents/ Non-applicants For Appellant : Mr. Shubham Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 & 2 : None. Though served. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 25/06/2025 PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 1. Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the award dated 01.04.2019 passed by Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh 2 / 9 (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 234/2017, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 6,77,750/- as compensation in motor accidental injury case. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 28.06.2017 at about 03:00 pm, when applicant Jaiprakash was returning home from village Parsa with his friend Deepak alias Mantu on TVS motor cycle No. CG15 CM 1984 owned by his father, reached near village Rajpuri and Asola on Ambikapur-Ramanujganj main road, non-applicant No. 1-driver of the truck No. CG04 ZD 7262 (hereinafter referred to as “offending truck”) while driving the truck rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of applicant. In the accident, applicant Jaiprakash suffered serious injuries including fracture of his right leg. 3. 4. 5. Appellant/applicant, being minor, filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 through his natural guardian ie., father, seeking compensation of ₹ 26,15,000/- based on the pleadings made therein. Respondent No. 1 & 2 / Non-applicant No. 1 & 2 -driver and owner of the offending truck did not appear before the Claims Tribunal and they were proceeded ex parte. Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company filed its reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made therein, it was further pleaded that the compensation is claimed on false and baseless grounds. The accident occurred due to head-on collision between two vehicles, as such there was contributory negligence of both vehicles. Liability is of owners and insurer of both vehicles. The driver of the motor cycle was not having valid and effective driving license, motorcycle was not insured. 3 / 9 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that applicant Jaiprakash suffered grievous injuries in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending truck by non-applicant No. 1, resulting in 60% permanent disability. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 6,77,750/- as total compensation with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application. 7. Learned counsel for appellant-claimant would submit that the appellant- claimant has filed this appeal challenging the impugned award seeking enhancement of amount of compensation on the ground that the Claims Tribunal though has awarded the amount of compensation under different heads, however, the compensation computed is on lower side. Claims Tribunal has assessed income of appellant-claimant as ₹ 4,500/- per month only, which in the facts of the case is much on lower side. Claimant in his claim application and in averments stated that he was earning ₹ 6,000/- per month. He next contended that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded sufficient amount of compensation under the head of medical expenses, loss of income during laid down period, special diet, attendant, conveyance and also towards pain and sufferings. Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of loss of amenities in life and loss of marriage prospects as on the date of accident and suffering due to grievous injuries, age of appellant was only 16 years. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company opposes the
Legal Reasoning
submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that the Claims Tribunal considering entire facts of the case has awarded compensation on all heads for which the appellant is entitled for. The claim against medical bills which was submitted in evidence has been considered and appropriately 4 / 9 awarded. The amount of compensation has awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper in the facts of the case, it does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the record and also the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal in the impugned award. 10. It is not in dispute that the appellant suffered motor accidental injuries with the offending truck driven by non-applicant No. 1 and owned by non- applicant No. 2. In the accident, he suffered injuries on different parts of the body including severe injuries over his right leg. During treatment his right leg was amputated below knee while undergoing treatment at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur. The fact of amputation is mentioned in the disability certificate Ext. P-12 issued by the District Medical Board, Ambikapur. Claims Tribunal considering the percentage of disability mentioned in the disability certificate as 60% has considered loss of earning capacity of appellant to the extent of 60%. This finding of the Claims Tribunal is not challenged by the Insurance company or non-applicants therein and therefore I am not inclined to interfere with the said finding of the Claims Tribunal. 11. Sofar as submission of learned counsel for the appellant about computing amount of compensation towards loss of future earning capacity due to disability is concerned, Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of appellant as ₹ 4,500/- per month considering his age to be 16 years and a student. The issue with regard to assessment of income of student ie., a non-earning person has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Mekala v. M. Malathi, reported in (2014) 11 SCC 178 and held that for the purpose of computing the amount of compensation Tribunals/ courts may assess the income of applicant on notional basis. For assessing the income on notional basis, the Court can also take help of minimum wages fixed by 5 / 9 the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. In the case at hand, claimant has pleaded his income to be ₹ 6,000/- per month which is almost equal to the minimum wages prevailing during the period when accident occured, therefore, I find it appropriate to assess income of appellant as ₹ 6,000/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 12. Further, Claims Tribunal has not added amount of compensation towards loss of future prospects. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sidram vs. The Divisional Manager, United Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed 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 admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim's death." 13. In view of the aforementioned decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the injured/claimant who suffered permanent disability, is entitle for 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. 6 / 9 14. Considering the fact that the appellant suffered 60% permanent disability on account of amputation of right leg and aforementioned decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, I find it appropriate to add 40% of assessed income towards future prospects. 15. The discharge tickets are not exhibited, though they are available in record. To award just and fair compensation towards loss of income during the laid down period, I find it appropriate to take into consideration the discharge tickets of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur. The first discharge ticket is dated 06.07.2017, in the said discharge ticket bearing registration No. 140220/1724074 the date of admission is mentioned as 06.07.2017 and the date of discharge is mentioned as 09.08.2017 ie., about 34 days. He thereafter got again admitted on 21.08.2017 till 23.09.2017 ie., 33 days and again got admitted on 19.09.2018 till 28.09.2018. Last admission of appellant-claimant is mentioned as 19.09.2018. The cause of complain made by the person is of puss discharge sinus of old injury. Prior to this appellant was admitted at District Hospital, Ambikapur from 28.06.2017 05.07.2017. 16. From the aforementioned discharge tickets, it is apparent that the appellant- claimant took treatment as in-patient from the Government Hospitals at Ambikapur and then Raipur for total period of 77 days. During that period, appellant-claimant might have required one attendant with him to take care for all his needs. Apart from the medical treatment, he must have required help of attendant even after discharge from the hospital and therefore considering entirety of the facts of the case, looking to the nature of injury, in particular amputation of right leg below knee and further infection on the wound, puss discharge and sinus, in the opinion of this Court, he may have taken help of attendant for a period of six months. Accordingly the appellant- claimant is entitled for the compensation towards the attendant for a period of six months. As the attendant must be a major person and his income could 7 / 9 not be taken less than the wages prevailing for an unskilled labourer and fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act ie., ₹ 7,930/- per month, which makes the total compensation as ₹ 47,580/- (₹ 7930x6). It is ordered accordingly. Claimant has not produced bills against the expenditure incurred towards treatment. Considering the period of treatment and further that the claimant might have purchased medicines etc. The only documents filed as Ext. P-9 to P-11 towards the medicine purchase expenses are of 06.07.2017 and 10.07.2017. Appellant was also prescribed medicines. He has claimed ₹ 20,000/- towards medical expenses. Claims Tribunal considering the documentary evidence produced showing the expenditure of ₹ 8,550 only, has awarded the same considering the period of treatment, nature of injury and further medicines prescribed as mentioned in the document Ext. P-8 dated 05.10.2017 and further treatment as per the discharge tickets referred above till 28.09.2018, in the opinion of this Court, considering the nature of injury, period of treatment as in-patient, I find it appropriate to award medical bills of ₹ 20,000/- as claimed by the appellant- claimant. It is ordered accordingly. Considering the prolonged period of treatment and also the treatment as in-patient for about 77 days, appellant might not have worked for 6 months, therefore, I find it appropriate to award loss of income during laid down period ie., ₹ 36,000/- (₹ 6,000x6) and for which it will be appropriate to award ₹ 20,000/- towards special diet. Appellant is a resident of Ambikapur, he took treatment from Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur for which he has to travel from Ambikapur to Raipur. As per discharge ticket, appellant got admitted in the hospital thrice and therefore considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find it appropriate to enhance the amount of compensation under the head of conveyance expenses from ₹ 3,000/- to ₹ 15,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. The award of compensation of ₹ 50,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal towards pain and suffering is upheld. Claims Tribunal has not awarded any 8 / 9 amount towards loss of amenities in life, and loss of marriage prospect of a boy aged 16 years. He has to live his entire life with the said disability and may not have got the marriage as per his choice, therefore, I find it appropriate to award ₹ 50,000/- each towards marriage prospect and loss of amenities in life. 17. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellants-claimants requires recomputation, which is as under. 18. The monthly income of appellant is assessed as ₹ 6,000/- ie., ₹ 72,000/- per annum. Upon adding 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects, total yearly income of appellant will come to ₹ 1,00,800/-. There shall be application of multiplier of 18 in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC. Upon applying multiplier of 18, total loss of dependency will come to ₹ 18,14,400/-. Nowe, as the court held that the appellant suffered 60% loss of earning capacity, therefore, total loss of earning capacity of appellant will come to ₹ 10,88,640/-. Particulars • Annual Income/ dependency = ₹ 72,000/- Compensation ₹ 10,88,640/- (₹ 6000x12) • Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 40% (₹ 72,000 + 40% of ₹ 72,000 = ₹ 1,00,800) • Multiplier of 18 (1,00,800x18 = 18,14,400/- • 60% loss of earning capacity (18,14,400x60% = ₹ 10,88,640/- Medical Expenses Special Diet Attendant cost Pain and suffering Loss of amenities in life and marriage prospects (₹ 50,000/- each) Loss of earning during laid down period Conveyance Expenses Total ₹ 20,000/- ₹ 20,000/- ₹ 47,580/- ₹ 50,000/- ₹ 1,00,000/- ₹ 36,000/- ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 13,77,220/- 9 / 9 19. Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 13,77,220/- instead of ₹ 6,77,750/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount paid to the appellant-claimant pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 20.
Decision
In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. pwn Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge