NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.A.C. No. 1268 of 2022 Sohan Lal Sahu S/o Samelal Sahu, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Mohbhattha, Thana-Sargaon, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ------ Appellant Versus 1 - Brijesh Kumar Chaturvedi S/o. Ramlal Chaturvedi, Aged About 41 Years R/o Vinoba Nagar, Near Magneto Mall, In Front Of Kent Water Peuro Fire Service, Bilaspur, Thana Tarbahar, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Branch Manager, Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office-1st Floor, Gurukripa Tower, Near Icici Bank, Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur, Thana - Tarbahar, Tahsil And, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Appellant : Shri Arvind Prasad, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Gunjan Rani Agrawal, Advocate appeared on behalf of Shri Shekhar Amin, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 18 /03/2026 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant / claimant under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’). The challenge in this appeal is to an award dated 13/05/2019 passed by the II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (CG) (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 684/2019. 2. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs. 31,50,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.06,71,741- along-with interest in favour of the appellant / claimant on account of the injuries sustained by him in an accident that occurred on 08/01/2019 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Car bearing registration ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2026.04.01 13:06:45 +0530 -2- No. CG/10/AE-8055. Driven and owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No.2 / Insurance Company. 3. As per the pleadings in the claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, the appellant was travelling on a motorcycle along with his friends. When they reached near Bittu Dhaba, at that time driver of the offending vehicle car bearing registration No. CG/10/AE-8055 drove it in a rash and negligent manner, coming from the opposite direction, collided with the appellant’s vehicle. As a result of the said accident, the appellant sustained severe injuries. 4. The claim application was resisted by the respondents on various grounds including respondent No. 2 / Insurance Company taking a plea that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 5. Learned Tribunal on the basis of above broad pleadings framed six issues and after appreciation of material available on record, decided the same in favour of the appellant / claimant and awarded the above stated compensation in favour of the appellant / claimant and against the respondents. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant / claimant submits that the appellant sustained 40% permanent disablement, however, the learned Claims Tribunal considered only 15% permanent disability for ascertaining the loss of future income. Apart from this he submits that the income of the injured was also taken on the lower side and compensation on all other head is also on lower side. 7. Learned counsels for the respondents support the award and submits that 40 % disability is in respect to only leg and the Tribunal has rightly -3- assessed loss of earning capacity to 15% for whole body. As no documentary evidence was brought on record to substantiate the income and profession of the appellant, the finding of the income of the appellant is based on appreciation of the evidence. Hence no interference is warranted. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343, has held that: “19. We may now summarize the principles discussed above: (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the percentage of permanent disability). (iii) the doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined hims subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age,education and other factors. XXX XXXX XXXX 27.“in a case of injured claimant with disability, what is calculated is the future loss of earning of the claimant, payable to the claimant (as contrasted from loss of dependency calculated in a fatal accident, where the dependent family members of the deceased are the claimants). Therefore there is no need to deduct one-third or any other percentage from out of the income, towards the personal and living expenses. -4- 10. In the case of Sidram Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and Another, (2023) 3 SCC 439, it has been held in para 113 as under: “113. Before we close this matter, it needs to be underlined, as observed in Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar (2022) 13 SCC 790: 2020 SCC Online SC 752 that courts should be mindful that a serious injury not only permanently imposes physical limitations and disabilities but too often inflicts deep mental and emotional scars upon the victim. The attendant trauma of the victim’s having to live in a world entirely different from the one she or he is born into, as an invalid and with degrees of dependence on others, robbed of complete personal choice or autonomy, should forever be in the Judge’s mind, whenever tasked to adjudge compensation claims. Severe limitations inflicted due to such injuries undermine the dignity (which is now recognized as an intrinsic component of the right to life under Article 21) of the individual, thus depriving the person of the essence of the right to a wholesome life which she or he had lived, hitherto. From the world of the able bodies, the victim is thrust into the world of the disabled, itself most discomfiting and unsettling. If courts nit-pick and award niggardly amounts oblivious of these circumstances, there is resultant affront to the injured victim. 11.The appellant has filed medical certificate vide Ex.P-73 issued by the medical board according to which the appellant sustained 40% permanent disablement on his right leg. In order to prove it the appellant/claimant has examined Dr. Arvind Kumar Sahu (PW-2) who has categorically deposed that on account of injuries sustained by him in his right leg, it has weakened. 12.Perusal of the record also indicates that the appellant is an agricultural labour. Of Course, the certificate is issued in respect of his leg. But for the purposes of performing agricultural work, naturally the appellant is required to use his legs properly. Thus in light of judgment cited above, this Court assesses loss of earning capacity of the appellant from 15% to 30%. Apart from this, considering date of accident 08.01.2019, the nature of job and age of the appellant, this court assess the compensation in the following manner :- -5- S.No. Head Calculation 1. Monthly Income Rs.8200/- 2. 40% future prospect Rs.3280/- 3. Total monthly Income Rs.11,480/- 4. Total Yearly Income (11,480 x 12) Rs.1,37,760/-(per year) 5. 30% loss of earning Rs.41,328/- per year 6. Future loss of earning by applying multiplier of 15 Rs.06,19,920/- 7. For Pain and Suffering Rs.25,000/- 8. For attendant Rs.15,000/- 9. For Nutritional diet Rs.20,000/- 10. For Transportation Rs.17,500/- 11. For Medical treatment Rs.4,66,081/- Total compensation Rs. 11,63,501/- 13. After deducting Rs.06,71,741/- as awarded by learned Tribunal enhanced compensation would come to Rs.04,91,760/- The respondent No.2 / Insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount with 6% interest from the date of filing of this appeal i.e. 07/01/2022 within period of 60 days from receipt of copy of this order. After deposit 70% amount shall be invested as FDR in nationalized bank in the name of appellant for 03 years by the Insurance Company. Remaining 30 % amount shall be paid to him by bank transaction / account payee cheque. 14. Appeal thus allowed in part. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish