Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:32396 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2279 of 2019 1 - Vinay Kumar Sahu S/o Sukhram Sahu Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Sis Police Station Ratanpur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Present Address Pali Police Station And Tahsil Pali District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh Versus ... Appellant 1 - Ashok Singh S/o Laxman Singh Aged About 43 Years, R/o Nonbirra Police Station Deepaka Tahsil Pali District Korba Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Vehicle), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ruprani W/o Makkhan Singh R/o B/132 Shakti Nagar Gevra Project Police Station Kusmunda District Korba Chhattisgarh...(Owner Of The Vehicle), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Thr Branch Manager The New India Assurance Company Limited, Sada Complex T.P. Nagar Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh...(Insurer), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsiyan, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge 11/07/2025 Order On Board 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 13.09.2019 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District – Korba (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 104/2018. SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 2. Motor-accidental injuries suffered by the appellant, involvement of the offending vehicle, Respondent No. 3/Non-Applicant No. 3 to be insurer of the offending vehicle and liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company is not in dispute, hence, this Court is not adverting to the facts of case as pleaded in the claim application, reply filed by non-applicants and discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned award. However, this Court is only considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation and the submission of the counsel for the respective parties in this regard. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre amount of compensation by assessing income of the deceased as Rs. 5942/- for 25 days (i.e. 237.68 per day) and not assessing income on monthly basis. Further, learned Claims Tribunal looking to the nature of injuries suffered by the applicant/claimant fell into error in not awarding compensation towards loss of future prospects, disbelieving the contents fo the Disability Certificate (Ex. P/27) and the evidence of Dr. Ghanshyam Deewan (AW-2) on extraneous consideration. He contended that the appellant suffered fracture injury on his left knee suffered Proximal Tibia due to which, he is unable to move and sit properly. Therefore, as per the disability assessed by Dr. Ghanshyam Deewan (AW-2) of applicant was to the extent of 34.30%. He also submits that the learned Claims Tribunal awarded meagre amount of compensation on other heads. On above grounds, he prays for enhancement of the amount of compensation suitably. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company opposes the submission made by counsel for the appellant 3 and would submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper. He submits that the claimants failed to prove nature of occupation and income of the deceased and therefore, Claims Tribunal considering the laid down period and disability suffered by the applicant have awarded just amount of compensation which does not call for any interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the claim case. 6. Perusal of the Disability Certificate (Ex. P/27) would show that upon appellant being examined by Dr. Ghanshyam Deewan (AW-2) it was appearing that due to motor accidental injuries suffered by the appellant/claimant, he suffered Proximal Tibia on the left knee due to which, applicant was unable to move and sit properly and his disability was assessed by Dr. Ghanshyam Deewan (AW-2) to the extent of 34.30%. Considering disability suffered by the applicant as mentioned in Disability Certificate (Ex. P/27) and evidence of Dr. Ghanshyam Deewan (AW-2), I find it appropriate to assess permanent disability for whole body to the extent of 13.70% by dividing the disability of the part of body by 2.5 and loss of income as 13.70%. It is ordered accordingly. 7. So far as submission of counsel for the appellant that Claims Tribunal assessed income of the appellant on lower side is concerned, perusal of the claim application would show that the claimant had pleaded occupation of the deceased as Motor Mechanic and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. To prove the pleadings made in claim application, claimant examined himself as AW -1. No other witness is examined by the claimant to prove nature of his occupation and income nor have submitted or exhibited any documents proving the fact that he was 4 working as Motor Mechanic. In absence of any admissible or clinching piece of evidence brought on record by the claimant to prove occupation and income as pleaded in the claim application, in the opinion of this court, learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing income of the deceased on notional basis. 8. However, Claims Tribunal fell into error in assessing Rs. 5924/- as income of the deceased for 25 days and not assessing income for whole month which comes to Rs. 7130/- as fixed by the competent authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for Unskilled Labourer of ‘B’ Zone area notified for the period from 01.04.2017 to 30.09.2017. Hence, I find it appropriate to assess monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 7,130/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 9. Perusal of the finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal in para 10 of the impugned award would show that the learned Claims Tribunal assessed loss of earning of the appellant as 13.72% and accordingly, computed compensation towards loss of income and awarded Rs. 1,76,092/-. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards future prospects. 10. Award of compensation under the head of future prospects is considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sidram Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr. reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439 and held that in cases of permanent disablement also, claimants will be entitled for compensation under the head of loss of future prospects as observed in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 5 11. In the aforementioned facts of the case and above decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, I find it appropriate to award 40% of the assessed income towards future prospect considering age of Claimant/Appellant to be 21 years on the date of accident. It is ordered accordingly. 12. Further, learned Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 175/- towards medical expenses, which is upon appreciation of evidences. Learned Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 20,000/- towards pains and sufferings, Rs. 10,000/- towards mental pain and agony, Rs. 10,000/- towards special diet, Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance expenses which does not call for any interference. However, considering the period of treatment of the appellant from 08.07.2017 to 14.07.2017 and thereafter, due to disability suffered, he might have required an attendant even after his discharge from hospital and therefore, I find it appropriate to enhance the amount of compensation under the head of attendant from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. 13. Perusal of the impugned award would show that learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation towards loss of income during laid down period. Considering period of treatment from 08.07.2017 to 14.07.2017 and nature of injuries suffered by the applicant, he might not be able to work and perform his daily activities for long period of time, therefore, I find it appropriate to award loss of income during the laid down period for 03 months which come to Rs. 21,390/- (7130×3). It is ordered accordingly. 14.Claimants will also be entitled for the amount of compensation awarded under the head of medical expenses, pains and sufferings, special diet, mental pain and agony as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 6 15. In view of above, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellant. S. No. 1. Heads Compensation (A) Annual Income of claimant: : Rs. 2,95,819/- 7130 X 12 = 85,560 (B) Addition towards future prospects @ 40% (85,560 X 40% = 34224) (85,560 + 34224= 119784) (C) Multiplier of 18 (119784 X 18 = 21,56,112/-) (D) Loss of income due to permanent disability to the extent of 13.72% (21,56,112 X 13.72% = 2,95,819) 2. Loss of income during laid down : (+) Rs. 21,390/- period of 03 months 3. Medical Expenses 3. Mental Pain and Agony 4. Pains and sufferings 5. Conveyance Expenses 6. 7. Special diet Attendant Total Compensation : (+) Rs. 175/- : (+) Rs. 10,000/- : (+) Rs. 20,000/- : (+) Rs. 10,000/- : (+) Rs. 10,000/- : (+) Rs. 5,000/- : Rs. 3,72,384/- 16. Now, the Appellants/Claimants is awarded total compensation of Rs. 3,72,384/- instead of Rs. 2,29,267 as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. This enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 17. Certified copy as per rules. Dey Sd/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge