1 (MAC No. 375 of 2022) 2025:CGHC:44059 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 375 of 2022 1 - The New India Insurance (Correct Name Is Assurance) Company Limited Branch Office, Beside Head Branch Of State Bank Of India, Kewdabadi, Bus Stand Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Bharat Mistry S/o Sadhusharan Mistry, Aged About 42 Years Occupation Ex-Driver, R/o Village Kotra Road, Post Rehra, District Jahanabad (Bihar), Presently Residing At Bhagwanpur Gorkha Tahsil And District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh).............(Claimant) 2 - Sonelal Prasad S/o Ramdayal Prasad, Aged About 49 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Village Khadsara, Police Station Khejuri, District Baliya (Uttar Pradesh), Presently Residing At Chhattisgarh Trailer Service Gorkha, Tahsil And District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)..............(Non-Applicant No. 1) 3 - Basant Kumar Giri S/o Late Dharamnath Giri, Aged About 36 Years Occupation Vehicle Owner And Transporter, R/o Chhattisgarh Trailer Service Gorkha, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh...............(Non-Applicant No. 2) --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.09.02 14:33:22 +0530 2 (MAC No. 375 of 2022) For Appellant :- Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents :- None. SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 29.08 .2025 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of award dated 15.12.2021 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned I Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, by which compensation to the tune of Rs. 16,18,802/- along with 7% interest rate per annum from the date of claim application has been granted to the claimant for permanent disability suffered by him in a motor accident. 2. Ms. Swati Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant - insurance company would submit that higher compensation has been awarded to the claimant, who used to work as a driver, for amputation of his right leg and loss of earning capacity has been assessed to the extent of 100%, which is incorrect and contrary to law. She would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in 3 (MAC No. 375 of 2022) the matter of Sanjay Rajpoot v. Ram Singh1 to buttress her submission. 3. None for the respondents though served. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records with utmost circumspection. 5. Admittedly, the claimant was working as a driver on the date of accident and as a result of the incident, the claimant sustained severe injuries to his right leg, leading to amputation of his right leg below knee. In that view of the matter, learned Claims Tribunal has taken loss of earning capacity to the extent of 100% and accordingly, assessed the compensation to the tune of Rs.16,18,802/-. 6. In this regard, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata 2 may be noticed herein, in which the claimant was a carpenter and suffered amputation of his left hand above elbow and their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that since carpenter cannot work with one hand, disablement is total and not partial. As such, since the claimant herein was a driver and suffered amputation of his right leg below knee and cannot perform the work 1 LAW (SC) 2025 2 34 2 AIR 1976 1 SCC 222 4 (MAC No. 375 of 2022) of driver anymore therefore, his disablement is total and loss of earning capacity would be 100%. As such, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly recorded the loss of earning capacity of the claimant to the extent of 100% and I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned award. 7. Accordingly, the instant appeal deserves to be and is hereby, dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!