Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh v. 1. Deepak Sahu S/o Manbodhi Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Matiya
Case Details
SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Page No.1 2025:CGHC:3597 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2180 of 2019 1. Bisauha Ram Fekar S/o Late Ramau Lal Fekar Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Dharashiv, Police Station Kasdol , Tahsil Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh... (Appellant), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant-claimant versus 1. Deepak Sahu S/o Manbodhi Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Matiya , Police Station Gidhauri, Tahsil Kashol , District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh...(Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Sumo No Cg-02-5898)..(Non Applicant) 2. Director Health Services Address Infront Of Escort Hospital New Dental College, Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh.(Owner of the offending Vehicle Sumo No Cg-02-5898)..(Non Applicant) 3. Chief District Medical Officer Baloda Bazar , District Hospital , Baloda Bazar District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh... (Non Applicant), 4. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector , Baloda Bazar , District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh...(Non Applicants), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgar 5. Branch Manager National Insurance Company Limited , Address, Branch Office , 2nd Floor, Mobin Mahal, Lalganga, Beside Shopping Mall, G.E. Road , Raipur , District Raipur .. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Sumo No Cg-02-5898 (Mahatari Empress) ) Policy No 553000/31/17/6300003190 Duration 22-10-2017 To Night 21-10-2018....(Non Aplicant) …..Respondents Page No.2 1.
Legal Reasoning
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Ms. Dhanehswari Patel, Advocate For Appellant on behalf of Mr. P.K. Patel, Adv. : Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No.2 to 4 For Respondent No.5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 24/7/2025 1. This appeal is filed by injured claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar Bhatapara vide award dated 19.9.2019 in Claim Case No.37/2019 and since the accident, involvement of offending vehicle, which is driver by non-applicant No.1, owned by non-applicant No.2 and insured by non-applicant No.5, in said accident is not dispute, therefore, this Court is not adverting to the facts of the case and only considering submissions of learned counsel for respective parties on the question of enhancement of quantum of compensation. 2. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that appellant suffered 40% permanent disability, which is proved by producing medical certificate, Ex.A-176, however, the Claims Tribunal considering loss of income at the rate of 40% only. The Claims Tribunal further fell into error in awarding meager compensation under the head of pain and suffering, and in not awarding compensation towards conveyance expenses. She also contended that the Claims Tribunal while computing compensation under the head of loss of future income failed to Page No.3 add 40% of assessed income towards future prospects. Hence, she prays that the amount of compensation awarded be enhanced suitably. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents would submit that the Claims Tribunal considering the facts of case, nature of injuries and disability certificate issued by the Medical Board has already awarded sufficient amount of compensation of Rs.17,65,339/-. They further submit that disability certificate is Ex.A-176 mentions 40% permanent disability with respect to the part of body and not for whole body. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. To appreciate submission of learned counsel for appellant that the Claims Tribunal fell into error in not awarding future prospects is concerned, in case of case of Sidram vs. The Divisional Manager, United Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439, it was observed that in case of permanent disability also the claimant-injured will be entitled for compensation under the head of future prospects as per guidelines issued in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. In case at hand, at the time of accident, appellant was 40 years of age, and as such, there shall be addition of 25% of the assessed income towards future prospects for computing the income of deceased. It is ordered accordingly. 6. Accordingly, after adding 25% of assessed income i.e. Page No.4 Rs.10,000/-, total income of appellant would be Rs.12,500/- per month and annual income would be Rs.1,50,000/-. By applying multiplier of 15, as applied by the Claims Tribunal, total amount of compensation would come to Rs.22,50,000/-. As the claimant has suffered 40% permanent disability, as determined by the Claims Tribunal, the loss of future earning capacity suffered by applicant would come to Rs.9,00,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. 7. In view of enhancement made in the income, the appellant will now be entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (10000x4) towards loss of income during period of treatment, in place of Rs.40,00/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. 8. Perusal of discharge summary (Ex.A-170) of Narayana Hospital, Raipur would show that appellant was admitted in hospital on 24.8.2018 and discharged on 18.10.2018. In the discharge summary, principal diagnosis details is given as under:- “RTA with mandible fracture (para-symphysis) / blunt chest trauma: right fracture 2nd , 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th ribs, left fracture 2nd , 3rd, 4th, 5th, ribs / right hemothorax / subcutaneous emphysema/fracture SC Humerus Right.” 9. From the discharge summary it is appearing that appellant suffered multiple fractures of ribs and chest. Thus, looking to nature of injuries, as mentioned above, in the opinion of this Page No.5 Court, the Claims Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and therefore, it is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. 10.The Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.13,000/- towards attendant charges. Looking to nature of injuries and period of treatment, the appellant might have needed attendant for about three months and therefore, considering the minimum wage rate notified by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the relevant period i.e. Rs.7,800/-, I find it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.23,400/- towards attendant charges, in place of Rs.13,000/- as awarded by Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. 11. From the documents on record, it is appearing that appellant is resident of Kasdol, he took treatment from Narayana Hospital, Raipur and thus he must have spent considerable amount on transportation expenses and therefore, I find it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.8,000/- towards conveyances expenses. It is accordingly ordered. 12. The compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal towards medical expenses, special diet etc. is just and proper and the same is maintained. 13. In view of above, claimant/appellant is now entitled for compensation as under;- Page No.6 HEADS : AMOUNT (In Rs.) Loss of future earning capacity : 9,00,000=00 Loss of income (10000x4) Medical expenses For pain and sufferings For Special Diet For conveyance For Attendant For loss of future non-earning capacity : : : : : : : 40,000=00 8,62,339=00 25,000=00 20,000=00 8,000=00 23,400=00 1,00,000=00 Total: 19,78,739=00 14. Now, claimant/appellant is held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.19,78,739/- in place of Rs.17,65,339/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of application. Any amount disbursed to appellant pursuant to impugned award will be adjusted from the amount of compensation as awarded above. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 15.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. roshan/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge