• Sheikh Iqbal S/o Sheikh Guddu Aged About 30 Years R/o Islam Mohalla, Saraipali v. 1. Mahendra Kumar S/o Arjun Nishad Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Tarra, Police
Case Details
1 / 9 2025:CGHC:26423 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2225 of 2019 • Sheikh Iqbal S/o Sheikh Guddu Aged About 30 Years R/o Islam Mohalla, Saraipali, Tahsil and Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, Present Address- Through Rasikbhai, Behind Dabri School, Near Electricity Office, Nayapara, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants/ Claimants versus 1. Mahendra Kumar S/o Arjun Nishad Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Tarra, Police Station Arjuni, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 2. Jai Ambe Emergency Services Manager Jogendra Singh, Registered Office - Anupam Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner) 3. United India Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Kachhari Chowk, Jail Road Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Ms. Shaleeni Jangde, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate --- Respondents
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 20/06/2025 1. This is an admitted appeal. There is no representation on behalf of Respondent No. 2, though served. Office report shows that the Respondent No. 1 is not served due to wrong address. 2. Learned counsel for appellant submits that Respondents No. 1 and 2 remained ex parte before the Claims Tribunal even after service of notice. PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 9 The liability to satisfy award is upon non-applicant no. 1 to 3 jointly and severally. First liability is upon non-applicant No. 3, being insurer of the vehicle. Hence, service of notice upon Respondent No. 1 (driver of offending vehicle) be dispensed with. Considering the facts of the case prayer is allowed and the case is heard in absence of owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 3. 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 30.09.2019 passed by Learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 632/2017, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 4,60,800/- as compensation in motor accidental injury case. 4. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 19.12.2016 at 10.30 p.m., applicant Sheikh Iqbal, in the capacity of Supervisor of vehicle owner non-applicant no. 2, was returning to Raipur after dropping a dead body in a village ahead of Nagari in the vehicle ambulance C.G.04-H.D.- 8531. When applicant reached near the forest area of Sita river, Aatdahara river, ambulance driven by non-applicant no. 1 collided with a tree situated on the side of the road. In the accident, applicant suffered grievous injuries, fracture of left leg bone above and below the knee, toe of the right foot and injuries on other parts of the body. The applicant was taken to Mekahara Hospital, Raipur for treatment, from where he was taken to V.Y. Hospital for further treatment. Information of the accident was given to police station Borai, based on which Crime no. 21/16 for alleged offence underSection 279, 337, 338 of IPC was registered against non-applicant No. 1/ driver of vehicle ambulance. 3 / 9 5. Appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 25,50,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident appellant was about 30 years of age, was an able bodied person. At the time of the accident he was doing the work of Supervisor in the Muktanjali hearse van owned by non-applicant No. 2 and was earning ₹ 7,000/- per month and ₹ 150/- daily allowance to support himself and his family. Due to accident, he is incapable of doing day to day work, lifting things, walking etc. and is unable to work as he was used to do before accident. 6. Respondent No. 1 & 2 / Non-applicant No. 1 & 2 -owner and driver of the vehicle ambulance did not appear before the Claims Tribunal even after service of notice and they were proceeded ex parte. 7. Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company filed its reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further denied that on 19.12.2016 applicant suffered grievous injuries due to the alleged accident with ambulance number CG 04- HD-8531. It is denied that non-applicant 1 and 2 were the driver and owner of the offending vehicle ambulance. The injuries sustained by the applicant as a result of the accident, his treatment and the information given in the police station Borai in this regard are also denied. The statement of applicant that he used to earn ₹ 7,000/- per month by working as a Supervisor in Muktanjali hearse vehicle and that he receives Rs. 150 per day as an allowance is also denied. It is further stated that as per the terms and conditions of Miscellaneous and Special Type of Vehicles Package Policy No. 2703003116P103669293, Venture EX Ambulance manufactured by Tata Motors owned by M/s Jayambe Emergency Services Pvt. Ltd. having Engine Number 475DT18CTY 30836 and Chassis Number MAT483601GTC04189 was insured for the period from 16/06/2016 to 15/06/2017. In such a situation, non-applicant number-3 is not liable for compensation, because no 4 / 9 agreement has been made between non-applicant no. 2/ owner and non- applicant no. 3 for compensating the person sitting inside the motor vehicle in case of injury and for this no premium amount has been paid by non- applicant No. 2. It is further pleaded that on the date of accident, non- applicant No. 1/ driver of the offending ambulance vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. 8. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that appellant-Sheikh Iqbal suffered grievous injuries resulting 15% permanent disability in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle ambulance owned by non-applicant No. 2 and driven by non-applicant No. 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 4,60,800/- as total compensation with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application and fastened first liability upon non-applicant No. 3-insurance Company and joint and several liability upon Respondents/non-applicants. 9. Learned counsel for appellant-claimant would submit that learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding sufficient amount of compensation in the facts of the case. Claims Tribunal erred in assessing loss of income due to disability suffered by the claimant. Though the Tribunal has assessed the disability to the extent of 15%, however, income of appellant has been assessed on lower side ie., ₹ 6,000/- per month only treating him to be labourer whereas on the date of accident the minimum wages of a labourer as fixed by the competent authority would be ₹ 7,800/- per month. The amount of compensation awarded on other heads is also on lower side and further that the Tribunal though calculated loss of income during laid down period of ₹ 36,000/-, however, that amount has not been added while computing the total compensation. 5 / 9 10. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the Tribunal justified in assessing income of deceased on notional basis. The amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on appreciation of facts and evidence available on record, is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. 12. Learned counsel for appellant raised ground seeking enhancement of amount of compensation on two grounds that the Claims Tribunal assessed income of the appellant on lower side and further the amount of compensation awarded under other heads to be on lower side. 13. Sofar as the first ground raised by learned counsel for appellant-claimant with respect to assessment of income is concerned, on the date of accident age of appellant is assessed by the Tribunal, based on the documents available on record, is 34 years. Claimant in his claim application has pleaded his income as ₹ 7,000/- per month and ₹ 150/- daily allowance. To prove the nature of occupation and income, claimant neither has brought on record documentary/ oral evidence like salary slip, account register nor examined any witness/ employer in this regard. 14. In the aforementioned facts of the case, though Claims Tribunal justified in assessing the income of appellant on notional basis, however fell into error and has not considered the income keeping in mind the price index, cost of living, wage structure prevailing, age of appellant and further the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act. In the record of claim case, there is no material to suggest about the wage rate prevailing within the place of residence of appellant-claimant. 6 / 9 15. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the date of accident is 19.12.2016. Income of appellant-claimant assessed by the Claims Tribunal as ₹ 6,000/- per month is much less than what is fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act. Accordingly, I find it appropriate to assess the income of appellant on notional basis keeping in mind the minimum wages fixed under the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act for the period from 01.10.2016 to 31.03.2017 of unskilled labourer ie., ₹ 7,800/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 16. Perusal of impugned award would further show that the Claims Tribunal has assessed loss of income due to permanent disability to the extent of 15%. On the date of accident, appellant was 34 years of age as mentioned in the medical prescription and therefore he will be within the age group of 31-35 years and accordingly the appropriate multiplier would be 16 which is rightly applied by the Claims Tribunal. In view of the above, as the income of appellant is assessed as ₹ 7,800/- per month, the annual income of the appellant would be ₹ 93,600/- (₹ 7800x12). 17. While computing loss of future income, the Claims Tribunal has not added anything towards loss of future prospects. In 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 7 / 9 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." 18. Recently Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandramani Nanda vs. Sarat Chandra Swain & Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2859 considered the award of compensation towards the future prospects in the case of permanent disability has held that the claimant who suffered 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 Sethi, given the age of appellant was 32 years at the time of accident, he is entitled to 40% future prospects.” 19. In view of the aforementioned decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the injured/claimant who suffered permanent disability, is entitle for addition of 40% towards 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. Upon adding 40% towards future prospects, yearly income would come to ₹ 1,31,040/-. As there shall be addition of multiplier of 16, upon applying multiplier of 16, total income would be ₹ 20,96,640/- . As appellant is held to have suffered 15% loss of income therefore, loss of income due to permanent disability would be ₹ 3,14,496/- (15% of ₹ 20,96,640). Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that appellant-claimant could not be able to work for six months, therefore, he suffered loss of income during the period 8 / 9 of treatment for six months which comes to ₹ 46,800/- (₹ 7,800x6). Claims Tribunal has awarded ₹ 50,000/- towards other expenses of the hospital, attendant and special diet, which in the opinion of this Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Appellant-claimant suffered fracture injuries over his right leg and right foot. Considering the nature of injuries suffered and permanent disability, I find it appropriate to award ₹ 50,000/- towards pain and suffering instead of ₹ 30,000/-. Appellant-claimant will further be entitled for compensation under the head of loss of amenities in life. He suffered permanent disability of his leg to the extent of 15% for which this Court finds it appropriate to award ₹ 30,000/- towards loss of amenities in life. 20. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellants-claimants requires recomputation, which is as under. Compensation ₹ 3,14,496/- Particulars A) Annual Loss of income = ₹ 93,600/- (₹7800x12) B) Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 40% (₹ 93,600 + 40% of ₹ 93,600= ₹ 1,31,040) C) Multiplier of 16 (₹ 1,31,040 x 16 = ₹ 20,96,640) D) 15% loss of income due to permanent disability (₹ 20,96,640 x 15% = ₹ 3,14,496/-) Loss of income during treatment period for six months (Rs. 7800x6) ₹ 46,800/- Other expenses of the hospital, attendant cost and ₹ 50,000/- special diet etc. Loss of amenities in life Pain and sufferings Total ₹ 30,000/- ₹ 50,000/- ₹ 4,91,296/- 21. Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 4,91,296/- instead of ₹ 4,60,800/- 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 9 / 9 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. 22.
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