PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA • Narmada Prasad S/o Parasram v. 1. Mulchand S/o Chitram R/o Village Negwa, Bahoriband , District Katni Madhya Pradesh
Case Details
1 / 6 2025:CGHC:40735 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2307 of 2019 PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA • Narmada Prasad S/o Parasram Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Parla, Tahsil Podiuproda, District Korba Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant/ Applicant-claimant versus 1. Mulchand S/o Chitram R/o Village Negwa, Bahoriband , District Katni Madhya Pradesh ...(Driver) 2. Santosh Birchand Sharma S/o Birchand Melaram Sharma R/o Rajesh Road Lines, Ring Road No. 2, Bhanpuri, District Raipur Chhattisgarh...(Owner) 3. Branch Manager United Insurance Company Limited, Branch Micro Office, Shukla Complex, Main Road, Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh... (Insurer) --- Respondents/ Non-applicants (cause title is taken from Case Information System) ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ajay Kumar Chandra, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 13/08/2025 1. Appellant/ claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) challenging the impugned award dated 18.10.2019 passed by Learned Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 07/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in part 2 / 6 and awarded total sum of ₹ 6,93,600/- as compensation in a motor accidental injury case with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization and fastened liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon non-applicant No. 3-insurance company. 2. This appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of amount of compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Motor accident occurred on 13.05.2017 at about 11:00 p.m. in night, involvement of vehicle truck bearing number CG04-JB-9181 (hereinafter referred to as “offending truck”) owned by non-applicant No. 2, driven by non-applicant No. 1, as well as the liability of insurer- non-applicant No. 3- to satisfy the compensation amount as determined, are not disputed by the parties before this Court. 3.
Decision
In view of the above admitted position, this Court does not deem it necessary to once again traverse the entire factual matrix of the accident as set out in the claim application, reply filed by non-applicants, and further adverted in the impugned award. The present adjudication is, therefore, confined to the limited issue of the claimant’s grievance with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded. The Court will accordingly examine only the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, on enhancement of compensation. 4. Learned counsel for appellant-claimant would submit that the Claims Tribunal erred in awarding less amount of compensation considering that the appellant suffered only 32% of loss of income due to permanent disability suffered by him, overlooking the fact that in the motor accidental injuries appellant’s right leg was amputated above knee. He next contended that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded entire medical bills as placed before the Claims Tribunal and exhibited. The compensation awarded under other heads is also much on lower side and therefore compensation be suitably enhanced. 3 / 6 5. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 would oppose the submission of counsel for appellant and would further submit that learned Claims Tribunal relying upon the evidence of AW-3, Dr. Ghanshyam Diwan has recorded a finding that loss of earning due to permanent disability suffered to appellant is only 32%. He also contended that compensation under head of medical expenses head was computed by adding all the bills produced by the claimants before the Claims Tribunal and upon adding total expenditure made of ₹ 18,973, awarded ₹ 19,000 by rounding off. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 7. Perusal of record would show that appellant suffered motor accidental injuries on 13.05.2017, he was admitted to Shri Balaji Trauma and Super Speciality Hospital, Korba on 14.05.2017 at about 06:57 am and discharged on 17.05.2017. In F.I.R. of the accident, lodged on 26.06.2017 it is mentioned that the injured suffered severe injuries over his right leg. Medical documents available on record would show that he suffered fracture of right tibia fibula. He got admitted himself on many occasions and after discharge from the hospital on 17.05.2017 he was again admitted in Shri Balaji Trauma and Super Speciality Hospital, Korba on 02.06.2017 till 10.06.2017. Later on his leg was amputated above knee. Claims Tribunal taken note of Ext. P-68, Disability Certificate issued in Form-II by the Indira Gandhi District Hospital, Korba, C.G. mentioning disability to the extent of 80% on account of amputation of right leg 1/3. 8. To prove the permanent disability mentioned in Disability Certificate Ext. P- 68, claimant has examined Dr. Ghanshyam Diwan, Medical Officer, District Hospital, Korba. In his evidence, he stated that upon examination of claimant/ appellant, he found his femur bone was amputated from lower end. He also admitted that disability for whole body would be 32%. Claims Tribunal relying 4 / 6 upon evidence of doctor AW-3 with regard to disability for whole body to be 32% has recorded a finding that the appellant suffered 32% loss of income. Tribunal fell into error in not considering effect of nature of permanent disability suffered by claimant/ appellant due to amputation of his right leg above knee. Under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 percentage of loss of earning capacity due to amputation of part of body. Schedule I, Part II under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 would show that where the amputation below middle thigh but above knee, loss of earning is shown to be 60% and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, Claims Tribunal erred in assessing loss of earning of claimant/ appellant to be 32% only which is not sustainable and is set aside. Taking note of entry no. 19 of the Part-II of Schedule-I under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, I find it appropriate to hold that appellant suffered 60% loss of earning capacity and loss of earning 60% of the assessed income. It is ordered accordingly. 9. Claims Tribunal disbelieved the pleadings and evidence of claimant that he was doing work of water pump operator/ mechanic with Dileep Buildcon Company and earning ₹ 12,000 per month. As the claimant failed to prove any admissible prove like salary slip etc. Claims Tribunal taking note of the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for unskilled labourer assessed his income as ₹ 7,800 per month, which cannot be said to be erroneous and it is affirmed. 10. Claims Tribunal has further awarded ₹ 19,000 towards medical expenses which from the documentary evidence as available on record is correctly awarded. Further, Claims Tribunal has awarded ₹ 3,000 towards attendant, which in the facts of the case is less. Appellant took treating for about 03 months in the hospital and for which he might have required attendant for his support. Looking to the nature of severe injuries suffered by appellant- claimant on his right leg, I find it appropriate to award compensation towards 5 / 6 attendant for a period of 03 months, taking into consideration minimum wages as assessed by the Claims Tribunal ie., ₹ 7,800 per month, which comes to ₹ 23,400 (7800x3). It is ordered accordingly. Tribunal has awarded ₹ 50,000 towards physical pain, ₹ 30,000 towards mental pain and agony, however, not awarded any amount of compensation towards loss of amenities in life. Age of appellant on the date of accident was 40 years and he has to live with the amputated leg for whole of his life, he will not be able to enjoy his life like an ordinary man and therefore, I find it appropriate to award ₹ 50,000 towards loss of amenities in life. It is ordered accordingly. The amount of compensation awarded under the head of special diet is enhanced to ₹ 15,000 from ₹ 5,000. Claimant will further be entitled for an amount of ₹ 5,000 towards conveyance expenses, ₹ 20,000 towards future medical treatment instead of future prospects, as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 11. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellant-claimant requires recomputation, which is as under. Particulars A. Annual Loss of income = ₹ 93,600/- (₹7800x12) (maintained) B. Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 25% (₹ 93,600 + 25% of ₹ 93,600= ₹ 1,17,000) C. Multiplier of 15 (₹ 1,17,000 x 15 = ₹ 17,55,000) D. 60% loss of earning due to permanent disability (₹ 17,55,000 x 60% = ₹ 10,53,000) Medical Expenses (maintained) Pain and sufferings (maintained) Mental pain and agony (maintained) Loss of amenities in life Attender cost (enhanced) Special Diet (enhanced) Future Medical Treatment (maintained) Conveyance expenses (maintained) Compensation ₹ 10,53,000/- ₹ 19,000/- ₹ 50,000/- ₹ 30,000/- ₹ 50,000/ ₹ 23,400/- ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 20,000/- ₹ 5,000/- Total ₹ 12,65,400/- 6 / 6 12. Now the appellant-claimant shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 12,65,400 instead of ₹ 6,93,600 as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. • Any amount paid to the appellant-claimant pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. • Rest of the conditions of the impugned award as imposed by the Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. 13. Consequently, appeal filed by appellant-claimant is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. pwn Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge