1 2025:CGHC:24457 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 509 of 2019 Ramnarayan Sahu, S/o. Mahesh Ram Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Limora, Police Station And Tahsil - Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1 - Anil Ram Rawani S/o Basant Ram Rawani, Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Nenua, Police Station - Chainpur, District - Palamu ( Jharkhand), Present Address New Ambika Goods Career Rawabhata, Transport Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 2 - Nilesh Agrawal S/o Late Dharamchandra Agrawal, Aged About 37 Years R/o Flat No. 1, C Block, Near H.P. Gas Office, Mansa Chamber Fafadih, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner) 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through - Branch Manager, G.E. Road, Chouhan Estate, Supela Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Insurer). --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate Respondent No.3 : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 16/06/2025 1. Claimant/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Third BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District – Durg (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 30.11.2018 passed in Claim Case No.442/2017 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.9,75,253/- as compensation in an injury case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that applicant/claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming total compensation of Rs.34,00,000/- under different heads on account of the injuries suffered by him in the road accident pleading therein that on 07.01.2017 at 08.00 a.m., when applicant was standing on the side of the road under over bridge of Pachpedhinaka, Raipur waiting for an auto to go to the examination center, at the same time the vehicle truck coming from Raipur bearing registration number CG 04 HY 6036, driven by non-applicant no. 01 in a rash and negligent manner , hit the applicant, caused an accident. Offending vehicle ran over the body of the applicant due to which both legs of the applicant's were broken, stomach was damaged, urinary bladder was burst and there were serious injuries on right knee, foot, right wrist, right ear, hand, leg, head, chest and various parts of the body. The injured was taken to Primary Health Center Tikrapara for treatment and looking to his serious condition, he was immediately admitted to Shri Balaji Multispeciality Hospital, Mowa Raipur for proper treatment where the applicant was treated. 3. The non-applicants No.1 and 2 jointly filed their reply and denied the averments made in the claim application. It was specifically pleaded the non-applicant No.1 was having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The non-applicant No.3 in its reply has pleaded 3 that the claim application was filed exaggerating the amount of compensation. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal after appreciating all the pleadings and the evidence available on record has allowed the claim application in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.9,75,253/-. 5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal overlooking the evidence and the pleadings made in the claim application has assessed the permanent disability suffered by the appellant/claimant to the extent of 20% overlooking the disability certificate issued by the Board mentioning permanent disability of appellant to the extent of 60% on account of the nature of injuries suffered by him. He also pointed out that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding less amount of compensation on other heads. The appellant suffered grievous injuries over his person, though the amount of compensation is awarded under the head of pains and suffering, special diet, medical bills, however, no amount of compensation is awarded under the head of loss of amenities in life. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 raises an objection and would submit that the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper, which does not call for any interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of the learned Claims Tribunal. 8. Upon putting the query to the learned counsel for appellant with respect to the nature of occupation of the injured/appellant, he fairly 4 submitted that the appellant was working as Assistant Teacher. He could not able to point out that due to the aforementioned injuries/disability suffered by him, appellant was expelled from the service or has taken voluntary retirement. In absence of such evidence it will be treated that the appellant even after the accident is working as Government Teacher for the purpose of earning his livelihood. In the aforementioned facts of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the appellant did not suffer any loss of income even if he suffered permanent disability. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,53,060/- calculating the amount of compensation towards loss of income due to permanent disability by assessing the loss of earning capacity of the appellant to the extent of 20%. Learned Claims Tribunal has also awarded towards medical expenses to the tune of Rs.2,72,193/-. Learned counsel for the appellant could not able to point out any infirmity or error in the award of claim against the medical bills. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards special diet and conveyance expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental pain and agony. 9. As the learned counsel for the appellant could not able to point out that appellant has been removed from service or is not working as Assistant Government Teacher from the date of accident, in the opinion of this Court, the appellant has not suffered any loss of income due to permanent disability, however, the Claims Tribunal has awarded the amount of compensation under the head of loss of income due to the permanent disability to the extent of 20%. Since the award of ₹4,53,060/- towards loss of income has not been challenged by the 5 non-applicant/respondents, this Court does not find it necessary to reassess that component. However, the Court is examining whether the compensation awarded for the claimant’s personal injuries sustained in the road accident is adequate. 10. Considering the entirety of the facts of the case as discussed above I do not find any good ground to allow this appeal seeking enhancement of amount of compensation. The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case does not call for any interference. Accordingly the appeal being sans merit is liable to be and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram