Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:23762 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 38 of 2019 1 - Prakash Dhimar S/o Late Nohar Dhimar Aged About 55 Years R/o Vindhyawasani Ward, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. versus --- Appellant 1 - Niranjan Gangvir S/o Yadu Ram Gangvir Aged About 28 Years R/o Behind Irrigation Colony, Gurur, Post, Thana, Tahsil Gurur District Balod Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kailash Kumar S/o Heraman Cast Mahar, R/o Village Gopalpuri Post Gopalpuri, Thana Arjuni, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 3 - Divisional Manager, Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Com. Ltd. Shive- Mohan Bhawan, Pandari Road Raipur Thana Pandari, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant Respondents No.3 : : Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate Mr. Utsav Mahishwar, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 13/06/2025 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, Dhamtari, District – Dhamtari (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 28.02.2018 passed in Claim Case No.59/2016 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.1,62,371/- as compensation in an injury case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that applicant/claimant 2 filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming total compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- under different heads on account of the injuries suffered by him in the road accident pleading therein that on 05.03.2015 while he was coming to his house and reached near Karmamata Square, Gokulpur Dhamtari, respondent No.1 by driving the offending vehicle Auto bearing registration No.C.G.-05/T/0319 in a rash and negligent manner dashed the injured/appellant and caused accident. The appellant suffered fracture of his leg, his leg was operated and iron rod was implanted. As a consequence of accident, he suffered 50% to 60% permanent disablement. He was 55 years of healthy man and was doing the work of fishing and because of accident he could not able to perform his work in the manner he was doing before the accident. 3. The non-applicants/respondents filed their reply to the claim application and resisted the claim. The learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and after recording the evidence of the respective parties, passed the impugned award. 4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal while allowing the application in part fastened liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon respondent No.3./Insurance Company. The learned Claims Tribunal while allowing the application seeking compensation on the ground of permanent disability suffered by the appellant over his right leg has assessed the income of the deceased only Rs.4,500/- overlooking his age and place of residents i.e. Dhamtari city place. The compensation awarded under the other head 3 is also on lower side. Learned Claims Tribunal has erroneously awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.30,000/- only towards special diet, grievous injuries, pain and suffering and attendant. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 do not dispute the submission of learned counsel for appellant of fastening the liability upon respondent No.3/Insurance Company to satisfy the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. He contended that age of the deceased as assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal was 60 years, therefore, in the facts of the case, the learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing the income of the appellant on notional basis and assessed the income of of the appellant as Rs.4,500/- per month, which does not call for any interference. He next contended that the learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of evidence available on record justified in awarding Rs.30,000/- on other heads, which does not call for any interference. 6. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The appellant met with an accident and suffered fracture of right femur for which the appellant took treatment as inpatient from 05.03.2015 to 10.03.2015. As the injuries suffered by appellant could not cure and was facing difficulty, he approached the Medical Board for assessing his disability and upon examining the appellant, Medical Board issued medical certificate mentioning the permanent disability of appellant to the extent of 50%. In support of his disability certificate, appellant has examined Dr. Vinod Kumar Pandey (A.W.-2), who in his evidence has stated that the appellant suffered fracture of 1/3 femur bone, the bone was malunited and one screw was also left in the part of the bone. The 4 learned Claims Tribunal on appreciation of evidence has also rightly recorded a finding that the appellant suffered 50% loss of earning capacity due to the permanent disability suffered in the accident and accordingly calculated the amount of compensation. 8. The learned Claims Tribunal upon considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record as also considering the date of accident as 05.03.2015, the income as pleaded and stated by the appellant could not be proved by the admissible piece of evidence, has assessed the income of the appellant on notional basis. For assessing the income on notional basis, the learned Claims Tribunal has to keep in mind, the price index, cost of living, wage structure etc. and may also take help of minimum wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. In the case at hand, the claimant failed to prove his income and earning, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken the help of minimum wages fixed by the competent authority prevailing in the State. The appellant is resident of Dhamtari, which falls within the Zone-B city and in the schedule, the competent authority has fixed the minimum wages for Zone-B cities for unskilled labourer as Rs.5,617/-, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the income of the injured is to be assessed as Rs.5,617/-. It is ordered accordingly. 9. Perusal of the impugned award would show that no amount is added towards future prospects. Since at the time of incident, the injured was 60 years of age, therefore, as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & 5 Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the income is required to be enhanced by 10% towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.561/- and thus the total monthly income of the injured comes to Rs.6,178/- (5,617 + 561 = 6,178/-) and annual income of the injured works out to Rs.74,136/-. 10. As the injured was 60 years of age at the time of accident, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 9. Accordingly, after applying the multiplier of 9, the total income of the injured comes to Rs.6,67,224/-. 11. As the loss of earning due to disability suffered by the appellant is held as 50%, the compensation has to be calculated in that proportion and accordingly total compensation under the head of loss of earning capacity works out to Rs.3,33,612/-. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,871/- towards medical expenses, which cannot be demonstrated to be erroneous or some medical bills though submitted before the Claims Tribunal has escaped consideration. 12. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded consolidated amount of Rs.30,000/- only towards special diet, for grievous injuries, pain and suffering and attendant, but have not awarded any amount towards loss of income during the period of treatment, which is erroneous. As the appellant suffered fracture of femur and it was malunited, in the opinion of this Court, the appellant could not able to perform his work for period of about four months, therefore, I find it appropriate to award loss of income during the period of treatment for the period of four months i.e. Rs.5,617 x 4 = Rs.22,468/-. It is ordered accordingly. Looking to the nature of injuries, I find it appropriate to award 6 Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards special diet, Rs.10,000/- for attendant and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities as the doctor examined by the appellant has proved the disability certificate mentioning 50% permanent disability. 13. On the basis of above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :- S.N. Head Amount. 1. 2. Loss of earning : Rs.3,33,612.00 Loss of income during laid down period : Rs. 22,468.00 3. Medical expenses : Rs. 10,871.00 4. 5. 6. 7. For pain and suffering : Rs. 20,000.00 For attendant : Rs. 10,000.00 For special diet : Rs. 10,000.00 Loss of amenities : Rs. 20,000.00 Total Compensation : Rs.4,26,951.00 14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.4,26,951.00. Any amount paid to the appellant 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 realization. 15.
Decision
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Balram Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge