-1- 2025:CGHC:22884 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 556 of 2020 Mangturam Nishad S/o Budhuram Nishad Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Pidhi, P.O. Lahgar, Police Station- Tumgaon, District Mahasamund, C.G. ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Keshav Vishal S/o Pavitra Vishal R/o Valijori, Police Station Bargadh, District Bargadh (Odisha), (Non Applicant No. 1/driver Of Vehicle No. OD-15/D/8318) 2 - Jitu Bhoi S/o Narayan Bhoi R/o Rengalipali Camp Bargadh, Police Station Bargadh, District (Odisha), (Non Applicant No. 2/ Owner Of Vehicle No. OD-15/D/8318) 3 - National Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., GE Road Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, C.G. (Non Applicant No. 3/insurer Of Vehicle No. OD-15/D/8318) ... Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : None appears For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 10/06/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.06.17 11:42:29 +0530 -2- is heard finally. 2. This is the claimant’s appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Fourth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) vide award dated 07.12.2019 passed in Claim Case No.418 of 2016. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 24.02.2016 at about 7:00 p.m., the offending vehicle – Eicher truck bearing No. OD- 15-D-8318 dashed against the motorcycle no. CG-04-KC-0698 near village Paragaon, PS-Aarang, District- Raipur. In the said accident, appellant/claimant Mangturam Nishad and Tijuram who were traveling on motorcycle suffered grievous injury on their persons. Appellant- Mangturam Nishad suffered fracture of right knee bone and left shoulder bone. It was pleaded in the claim application that at the time of the said accident, applicant/claimant was a 40-years-old healthy person and was working as a Mason, from which he was earning Rs.8,000/- per month and was supporting himself and his family with this income. Due to motor accidental injuries, he suffered permanent disability. Applicant/claimant prayed for a total compensation of Rs. 23,10,000/- from the non-applicants for the loss suffered by him as a result of the above accident. 4. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 were proceeded ex-parte in the claim proceeding, no written statement has been submitted by them. 5. Non-applicant No. 3 has filed its written statement denying all the facts pleaded in the claim application and further stated vehicle number CG 04 JB 1346 is not involved in accident. It has been stated that on the -3- date of accident, non-applicant No. 01 was driving the vehicle without a valid and effective driving license, without permit and fitness, and thereby violated the conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the claim application against non-applicant No.3 be dismissed. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which applicant/claimant suffered grievous injuries. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found proved, learned Claims Tribunal held non-applicants liable to pay the amount of compensation. Assessing income of the appellant/claimant as Rs.6,000/- per month, calculated amount of compensation under different heads, awarded total compensation of Rs.80,731/ -. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants raises a short point for consideration of this Court, that while considering the income of the appellant/claimant who was stated to be working as Mason, learned Claims Tribunal erred in not considering the date of accident and wages prevailing on the date of accident, as also not considered the fact that claimant/appellant was a skilled labourer. He prays for enhancement of the amount of compensation suitably. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and submits that the amount of compensation awarded is just and proper in the facts of the case and it does not call for any interference. -4- 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. 10. There is no challenge to the finding recorded by Tribunal that non- applicant No.1 is the driver of offending vehicle, which caused the accident, the registered owner of the offending vehicle is non-applicant No. 2 and the insurer of said vehicle is non-applicant No. 3. 11. So far as the ground raised by learned counsel for the appellants with regard to assessing income of the appellant/claimant is concerned, even if claimant failed to establish nature of occupation and income, then also applicant/claimant is to be treated as Labourer and his income is to be assessed considering the wages prevailing, price index, cost of living or as per the minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 12. For the purpose of assessing income of appellant/claimant on notional basis in absence of any specific evidence, this Court finds it appropriate to take help of the Notification issued by the Commissioner-cum- Competent Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. In the Notification for ‘Class-C zone/area’ for ‘unskilled labourer’, monthly income has been prescribed as Rs.7,800/- per month. In absence of admissible piece of evidence of occupation and income of appellant/claimant, on the date of accident, if the appellant/claimant is to be treated as Labourer, his income should not have been less than Rs.7,800/- per month (minimum wages fixed by competent authority), hence, the income of the appellant/claimant is assessed as Rs.7,800/- per month instead of Rs.6000/- per month as held by learned Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. -5- 13. Perusal of the impugned award shows that learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.24,731/- under the head- ‘treatment and medicines’, Rs.15,000/- towards ‘nutritious/special diet, transportation etc’, and Rs.25,000/- towards’ physical pain and mental agony’, which, in the opinion of this Court, learned Tribunal has rightly awarded. However, looking to the injuries suffered by the claimant/appellant and the treatment taken by him, award of Rs.4,000/- towards Attendant Charges appears to be on lower side. The appellant/claimant is entitled for award of Rs.10,000/- towards ‘Attendant Charges’. It is ordered accordingly. 14. For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. Expenses incurred towards treatment and medicines : Rs. 24,731 2. Attendant Charges : (+) Rs. 10,000 3. Nutritious/Special diet, Transportation etc. : (+) Rs. 15,000 4. Physical pain and mental agony : (+) Rs. 25,000 5. Loss of income during treatment for two months (7800 x 2 = 15600) : (+) Rs. 15,600 Total compensation : Rs. 90,331 15. Now the appellant/claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs. 90,331/- instead of Rs.80,731/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 16. Aforementioned total amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any -6- amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Other conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 17. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen