Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:22653 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1448 of 2019 1 - Vijay Kumar S/o Punitram Dhiwar Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Belsonda, Thana And Tahsil And District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh...........(Claimant), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh Versus ... Appellant 1 - Sunil Kumar Mittal S/o Indalchand Mittal R/o Village Belsonda, Thana And Tahsil And District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.........(Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Pickup No. C.G. 04/c.P./6185).............(Driver), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2 - Bodhankar Sahu S/o Anujram Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Jennjara Thana- Jonk Khariyar Raod District- Nuapada, Odissa...........(Registered Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Pickup No. C.G. 04/c.P./6185)..........(Owner), District : Nuapada *, Orissa 3 - Branch Manager The Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited, Shiv Mohan Bhawan Vidhan Shabha Road Pandri, Disrtict- Raipur, Chhattisgarh............. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Pickup No. C.G. 04/c.P./6185)................Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. A.L. Singhroul, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Shrishti Upadhyay, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 09/06/2025 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 award dated 01.04.2019 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in Claim Case No. H-47/2017. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 22.01.2016 at about 10:30 A.M., when the appellant along with his friend Chotu @ Pradeep on his motorcycle was going towards Belsonda from Godhari, at that time when they reached near Belsonda Pond, the offending vehicle i.e. Bolero Pickup bearing registration no. CG 04 JD 5141 driven by the Respondent No. 1 dashed the appellant’s vehicle from behind and caused accident. In the said accident, appellant suffered serious injuries, they were taken to Hospital for treatment. Subsequent to the accident, a crime was registered against the Respondent No. 1 bearing Crime No. 33/2016 at P.S. Karanjiya, District – Dindori for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding a meagre sum as amount of compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case, overlooking the fact that the appellant suffered fracture on the femur bone resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 50% as proved by Ex. P/6 issued by the Dr. N.K. Mandappe (AW-2). He next contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the appellant as Rs. 150/- per day only overlooking the fact that the appellant was doing the work of Labourer and was earning Rs. 4,500/- as pleaded and stated by the appellant. No amount has been awarded towards pains and suffering, loss of income during laid down period, special diet and attendant. Hence, the amount of compensation may suitably enhanced. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 vehemently opposes the submission made by the counsel for the 3 appellant and would submit that the submission of the counsel for the appellant that the appellant suffered 50% permanent disability is not correct, in view of the evidence of Dr. N.K. Mandappe (AW-2) available on record. She contended that Dr. N.K. Mandappe (AW-2) in his evidence has admitted that the Disability Certificate (Ex. P/6) issued mentioning 50% permanent disability is only with respect to one leg which is part of the body and not for the whole body and therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing the permanent disability with respect to the loss of earning capacity to the extent of 20% which does not call for any interference. She further submits that the appellant failed to prove the nature of work and his income by producing admissible piece of evidence. Hence, the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income on notional basis which also cannot be said to be erroneous. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the claim case. 6. So far as the first ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant with respect to the permanent disability assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal to the extent of 20% for loss of earning capacity is concerned, it is not in dispute that the appellant in a motor vehicular accident suffered fracture of right sept femur. During the course of treatment, rod was implanted and it resulted in shortening of leg. The appellant produced himself before the Medical Board and the Medical Board has assessed the disability to the extent of 50% vide Disability Certificate (Ex. P/6). The doctor namely, Dr. N.K. Mandappe who was a member of the Medical Board is examined as AW-2 and in his evidence, he proved the issuance of the Disability Certificate (Ex. P/6) mentioning 50% permanent disability of the right leg. In his 4 evidence, he admitted that the 50% Disability Certificate (Ex. P/6) is issued with respect to one leg i.e. right leg only and not for the whole body. He also stated that there was shortening of 1.6 inches of right leg. 7. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciating the documentary and oral evidence available on record, has assessed the loss of earning capacity due to the permanent disability suffered by the appellant to the extent of 20%. For the purpose of awarding compensation against the permanent disability suffered by the claimant, it is to be considered whether the permanent disability certificate issued by the Medical Board or the competent authority is with respect to the whole body or how the nature of the permanent disability affected the loss of earning capacity of a person. 8. In the case at hand, the doctor who issued the Disability Certificate (Ex. P/6) in his evidence has admitted that there is shortening of leg of 1.6 inches and due to which, the appellant is facing difficulty in his movement. No other abnormality after the treatment has been stated by the doctor. In the facts of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing the loss of earning capacity of the appellant to the extent of 20% and therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the said finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal. The finding with respect to loss of earning capacity to the extent of 20% is hereby affirmed. 9. So far as the next ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant with respect to the assessing of income of the appellant as Rs. 150/- per day and Rs. 4,500/- per month is concerned, true, it is that the appellant failed to prove the nature of employment and his 5 income by producing documentary and clinching admissible piece of evidence, in the aforementioned facts of the case, learned Claims Tribunal has taken the notional income for assessing the income of the appellant. However, the learned Claims Tribunal has not given any reasoning for assessing the income of the appellant as Rs. 150/- per day. In the aforementioned facts of the case, where the nature of employment and the income is not proved by admissible piece of evidence, the Courts/Tribunal can take help of the minimum wages prevailing in the district as fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 10. Perusal of the minimum wages as fixed by the competent authority for the period of 01.10.2015 to 31.10.2016 of Unskilled Labourer is mentioned as Rs. 5,860/- per month and therefore, I find it appropriate to take the wages of the appellant as Rs. 5,860/- per month instead of Rs. 4,500/- per month as fixed by the learned Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. 11. Learned Claims Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence has recorded that the appellant took treatment as patient for about 34 days. Looking to the nature of injury which is fracture on the femur bone and further the implant of the rod and the nature of work as stated by the appellant and accepted by the Claims Tribunal that the appellant to be a Labourer, the appellant may not be able to perform his work for a further period of about 03 months. Therefore, I find it appropriate to award loss of income during the laid down period of 03 months i.e. Rs. 17580 (5,860 X 3). Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards the pains and sufferings, for which, the appellant is 6 entitled for a sum of Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 5,000/- towards special diet and Rs. 5,000/- towards Attendant. 12. In the facts of the case and discussions as observed, I find appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation. 13. The income of the appellant is assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal based on the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 notified by the competent authority from the period from 01.10.2015 to 31.10.2016 as Rs. 5860/- treating the appellant to be Labourer. 14. 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:- “ 14.3 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 . 7 15. In the case at hand, the age of the deceased is 45 years and therefore, there shall enhancement of 25% towards the loss of future prospects. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 7325/- (5860 + 1465) and the yearly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 87,900/- (7325X12). The appellant is aged about 45 years and therefore, the multiplier of 14 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, therefore, the total income of the deceased would come to Rs. 1230600/- (87,900 X 14). As this Court has assessed the loss of earning of the appellant to the extent of 20% and therefore, the 20% of the loss of income would come to Rs. 246120/- (20% of 1230600) of Apart from the loss of income of Rs. 246120/-, the appellant would also be entitled for Rs. 15,000 towards mental pain and agony, Rs. 5,000 towards attendant, Rs. 5,000/- towards special diet and Rs. 17580 towards loss of income during laid down period and Rs. 10,600 towards medical expenses as awarded by the Tribunal. Appellant is resident of Village Belsonda, District – Mahasamund, took treatment at B.R. Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur and therefore, he his also entitled for compensation of Rs. 5000 towards conveyance expenses. It is ordered accordingly. 16. Now, the appellant/claimant will be entitled for the total amount of compensation which is as under:- • Rs. 3,04,300/- (246120 + 5,000 + 15,000 + 5,000 + 17580 + 10,600 + 5000) 8 17. 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. 18. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellant as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above.
Decision
19. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. 20. Certified copy as per rules. Dey Sd/- -----/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge