Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. 1. Surendra Mehta S/o
Case Details
1 / 7 2025:CGHC:27207 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1256 of 2019 • Smt. Ritumati Nande W/o Devcharan Sharma @ Nande Aged About 48 Years R/o Narhareshwar Mandir, Behind Fateshah Market, Police Station Tikarapara District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant- Applicant/Claimant versus 1. Surendra Mehta S/o Shri Govind Mehta, R/o Village Chaikala, Post Dadpur, Police Station Chouparan, District Hajaribag, Jharkhand, At Present R/o Geedam Naka, Jagdalpur, Police Station Parpa, District Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh. (Driver of Truck No. C G - 17, G A - 1668) 2. Smt. Suva Bai Rathi W/o Shri Nand Lal Rathi Aged About 60 Years Kumhar Para, Nayapara, Jagdalpur, District Jangdalpur - Bastar, At Present Sukma (North Bastar ) Chhattisgarh. (Owner of Truck No. C G - 17, G A - 1668) 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Division Office No. 1, Madina Manjil, Kachhari Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of Truck No. C G - 17, G A - 1668) ____________________________________________________________ : Mr. Praveen Kumar Dhurandhar, Advocate For Appellant --- Respondents/ Non-applicants
Legal Reasoning
For Respondent No. 1 & 2 : None. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 24/06/2025 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 11.12.2018 passed by Learned Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 7 Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 640/2017, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 3,15,404/- as compensation in motor accidental injury case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 28.02.2017 at 3.00 p.m., the applicant Ritumati Nande was coming to Raipur from village Dhaneli on a motorcycle driven by her husband Devcharan Nande. As soon as they reached near Panchmukhi Hanuman Temple, Bhanpuri Main Road, non-applicant No.1/ driver of a vehicle truck number CG 17-GA-1668 (hereinafter referred as “offending truck”) driving his vehicle rashly and negligently hit the motorcycle and caused an accident due to which Devcharan Nande and the applicant Ritumati Nande suffered serious injuries on their body. The said accident was reported at Police Station Khamtarai, Raipur, on the basis of which Crime No. 124/2017 was registered against non-applicant No. 1 Surendra Mehta for alleged offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC. 3. 4. Appellant/applicant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 11,80,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident she was about 48 years of age, was a healthy and able bodied person. Before accident she was doing tailoring work from home and was earning ₹ 200-300/- per day to support herself and her family. Respondent No. 1 & 2 / Non-applicant No. 1 & 2 -driver and owner of the offending truck submitted their reply to the claim application, denied all the adverse pleadings made in the claim application and have further pleaded that at the time of the accident, offending truck was insured with non- applicant No. 3 and hence, in case of any compensation is awarded, non- applicant No. 3 would be liable to pay compensation. 3 / 7 5. 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 denied the accident by the offending truck and that the applicant suffered physical and serious injury as a result of the accident. Occupation of applicant and her daily earning of ₹ 200-300 from sewing and knitting work is also denied. The owner and insurer of the motorcycle number CG 04-DS-4734 have not been made party. On the date of accident, driver of offending truck did not have a valid and effective driving licence to drive a goods vehicle as such there was violation of conditions of insurance policy. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that applicant Ritumati Nande suffered grievous injuries in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending truck by its driver/ non-applicant No. 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy and contributory negligence as also non- joinder of parties was not found to be proved, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 3,15,404/- 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 this appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of amount of compensation on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal though assessed loss of earning capacity to the extent of 20%, however, lump-sum amount of ₹ 1 lakh has awarded under the said head. The amount of compensation on other heads is also on lower side. Tribunal erroneously has not assessed the income of appellant-claimant as ₹ 300/- per day from the tailoring work. He also contended that in the facts of the case, where the appellant suffered permanent disability resulting in loss of earning capacity to the extent of 20%, 4 / 7 therefore there shall be addition of 25% of the assessed income to the income of appellant for assessing the just and fair compensation. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that the Claims Tribunal in the facts of the case has awarded just compensation which does not call for any interference. He submits that the claimant has pleaded nature of work as tailoring, however, she failed to prove the said occupation by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence. Hence, the Claims Tribunal justified in awarding lump-sum amount of ₹ 1 Lakh to the claimant towards loss of earning capacity. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. 10. From perusal of record, it is appearing that the appellant met with an accident on 28.02.2017 about 3:00 p.m.. Document Ext. P-115 to P-117 are the documents of the Balaji Institute of Medical Science Pvt. Ltd. Document Ext. P-115 would show that the appellant got admitted on 28.02.2017 ie., the date of accident and nature of injuries suffered by the appellant-claimant in the accident is mentioned as “traumatic avulsion injury of right heal pad and skin circumferentially from ankle.” The claimant is shown to be discharged from the hospital on 05.04.2017. Claimant has further submitted the disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board mentioning the permanent disability suffered by the appellant-claimant as 48% and the condition is also mentioned as not likely to improve. Claims Tribunal has assessed the loss of earning capacity to the extent of 20%. The above finding of the Claims Tribunal with regard to loss of earning capacity is not disputed by the counsel for appellant, however, he submits that the Claims Tribunal instead of computing the amount of compensation by applying the multiplier method 5 / 7 has awarded lump-sum amount of ₹ 1 Lakh towards loss of future income, which is erroneous. 11. From the documentary and oral evidence, it is clear that claimant/ appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 48% vide Ext. P-14. Claims Tribunal assessed loss of earning capacity as 20%. In application seeking compensation for injury or death in a motor accident, under the Act of 1988, it is for the Tribunal to award just and fair compensation analysing fact and evidence of each case. 12. True it is that the appellant-claimant failed to prove nature of occupation as tailoring, however, even if she is treated to be home maker, she is required to work from early morning till late night for the family members. She used to work in the house, cleaning house, cooking food, washing clothes and taking care of the family members satisfying of their needs accordingly. In the aforementioned facts of the case, even if the claimant failed to prove nature of occupation even then the income of appellant looking to the nature of work being home-maker cannot be computed, to be less than an unskilled labourer. The date of accident is 28.02.2017 and according to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 the wages as fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act is ₹ 8,320/- per month during that period. In the above facts of the case, I find it appropriate to assess the income of claimant to ₹ 8,320/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 13. For the purpose of computing the compensation and claimant’s loss of earning capacity in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, there shall be addition of 25% of the assessed income for the purpose of computing the total income of appellant-claimant, as the appellant-claimant on the date of accident is stated to be more than 40 years, ie., 48 years. Further, the appropriate multiplier, in view of decision of Honb’le 6 / 7 Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC would be 13. Appellant-claimant will further be entitled for compensation towards hospital bills and medical expenses of ₹ 73,915 and ₹ 86,890/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Claims Tribunal has awarded ₹ 11,100/- towards special diet considering per day expenses for 37 days. When the appellant-claimant was taking treatment as in-patient, she might have required special diet for further one month and, therefore, I find it appropriate to award ₹ 9,000/- towards special diet in addition to the amount already awarded which makes the total ₹ 20,100/- towards special diet. Claimant might have required attendant for further period of one month from the date of discharge from the hospital and therefore she is entitled for the compensation under the head of attendant for a period of 60 days with an income of ₹ 250 per day, which makes total of ₹ 15,000/-. Amount of ₹ 25,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering, which in the opinion of this Court is just and proper, and does not call for any interference. Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of amenities in life. Appellant on the date of accident was 48 years of age and looking to the nature of injury suffered by her she could not able to enjoy her life like an ordinary woman and, therefore, I find it appropriate to award ₹ 25,000/- towards loss of amenities in life. 14. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellants-claimants requires recomputation, which is as under. Particulars Compensation • Annual Income/ dependency = ₹ 99,840/- ₹ 3,24,480/- (₹ 8320x12) • Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 25% (₹ 99,840 x 125% = ₹ 1,24,800) • Multiplier of 13 (₹ 1,24,800 x13 = ₹ 16,22,400) • 20% loss of earning capacity = ₹ 3,24,480/- 7 / 7 (₹ 16,22,400x20%) Medical Expenses (Rs. 73,915 + Rs. 86,890) ₹ 1,60,805/- Special Diet Attendant cost Pain and suffering Loss of amenities in life Total ₹ 20,100/- ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 25,000/- ₹ 25,000/- ₹ 5,70,385/- 15. Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 5,70,385/- instead of ₹ 3,15,404/- 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 appellants-claimants pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. Other conditions imposed by the Claims Tribunal in the impugned award shall remain intact. 16.
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