-1- 2025:CGHC:16748 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 620 of 2020 Navkeet Nirala S/o Shri Banshilal Nirala Aged About 17 Years Through His Legal Friend And Natural Guardian (Mother) Santoshi Bai, W/o Bansilai Nirala, Resident Of Barpali, Police Station Gidhori, District Balodabazar-Bhatapar Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Navdeep Nirala S/o Bansilal Nirala Aged About 19 Years Resident Of Barpali, Police Station Gidhori, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, (Driver And Owner Of Offending Vehicle No. CG 11-A.N.- 9622) 2 - United India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office LIC Building Pandri Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle No. CG 11- A.N.-9622) ... Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Ms. Pragya Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Supriya Upasane, Advocate For Resp. No.1 : None appears though served For Resp. No.2 : Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B. N. Nande, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 09/04/2025 1. Heard on IA No.1 of 2020, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.04.15 15:00:25 +0530 -2- 2. On due consideration of the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and the grounds raised in the application, the application (IA No.1) is allowed. Delay of 44 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally. 4. 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 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar- Bhatapara (CG) vide award dated 22.10.2019 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.41 of 2019. 5. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that claimants/appellants filed an application under Sections 166 and 140 of the Act of 1988 pleading therein that on 21.12.2018 at 3:00 pm, when applicant/claimant Navkeet Nirala was going from his house to Shivrinarayan along with his brother Navdeep (non- applicant No.1) on a Pulsar motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 11 AN 9622, non-applicant No.1 driving the said motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner caused an accident in which rod on the bridge pierced one eye of applicant Navkeet who was sitting behind the motorcycle and he fell down from the bridge due to which he suffered serious injuries on his head and other parts of the body. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, applicant Navkeet was 17 years old, healthy and intelligent in studies. The applicant/claimant is unable to walk properly due to injury suffered on his person including impaired vision. He prayed for compensation of -3- Rs.30,30,000/- from the non-applicants with interest @ 18 %. 6. Non-applicant No.1 by filing his written statement has opposed the claim and stated that he was driving his motorcycle Pulsar No. CG 11 AN 9622 carefully on his side at a slow speed, however, due to pit near the accident site when he applied brakes, applicant fell on the ground. There is no negligence on his part. On the date and time of incident he had valid and effective documents to drive the said motorcycle, therefore, the insurance company is responsible for paying the amount of compensation awarded if any. 7. Non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company has opposed the claim of the applicant/claimant and stated that on the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving license. The vehicle was being used by the vehicle owner in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, due to which, the insurance company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 8. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was being driven by non- applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which applicant/claimant suffered serious injuries. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy, as also contributory negligence were not found proved, learned Claims Tribunal held non-applicants No. 1 & 2 liable to pay the amount of compensation. Assessing age of the claimant, a student, as 16 years as per the disability certificate (Ex.A-81) -4- placed on record and his income as Rs.5,000/- per month, calculating the loss suffered by the claimant under different heads, awarded total compensation of of Rs.8,18,576/ -. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant raises a short point for enhancement of the amount of compensation, that amount of Rs.20,000/- awarded under the head ‘mental pain and agony’ and Rs.20,000/- under ‘loss of amenities in life’ appear to be on lower side in the facts and circumstances of the case, where on the date of accident age of the appellant/claimant was only 16 years and he has to live with the disability (visual impairment) in his right eye for whole of his life, therefore, amount of compensation needs to be enhanced suitably. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company upon which liability to satisfy the award of compensation is fastened vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the amount of compensation awarded is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and it does not call for any interference. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. 12. In this case, it is undisputed that non-applicant No.1 is the driver of the offending vehicle, non-applicant No.2 is the insurer. Disability in the right eye suffered by the appellant/claimant in the said motor accident, liability to satisfy the amount of compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal upon non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company is also not in dispute. Short point raised by learned -5- counsel for the appellant/claimant in this appeal is that meager amount has been awarded under the head ‘physical and mental pain/agony’ and ‘loss of amenities in life. 13. Learned Claims Tribunal considering the age of applicant/claimant to be 16 years, disability certificate (Ex.A-81) produced by claimant on record, awarded an amount of Rs.4,32,000/- towards ‘loss of future earning’; Rs.3,16,576/- towards ‘medical expenses’; Rs.20,000/- towards ‘transportation/ conveyance charges’; Rs.10,000/- towards’ nutritious diet’; Rs. 20,000/- towards ‘physical and mental pain/agony’ and Rs.20,000/- towards ‘loss of amenities’. However, perusal of the award does not reflect that the learned Claims Tribunal awarded any amount towards future prospects of the claimant. 14. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandramani Nanda Vs. Sarat Chandra Swain & Anr. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2859) while considering the award of compensation towards the future prospects in the case of permanent disability has held that the claimant who suffer the permanent disability is also entitled for the loss of future prospects and held thus:- “ 14.3 However, the Tribunal and the High Court both have failed to consider the fact that the appellant is also entitled for enhancement on account of future prospects. Hence, in line with the law laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, given the age of appellant was 32 years at the time of accident, he is entitled to 40% future prospects.” -6- 15. In the case at hand, the age of the victim/claimant is 16 years and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, there shall enhancement of 40% towards ‘loss of future prospects’ as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandramani Nanda (supra). Further, from perusal of the award shows that appellant/claimant has been awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards ‘physical and mental pain/agony’ and Rs.20,000/- towards ‘loss of amenities in life’. However, looking to the nature of permanent disability which the appellant has suffered, which will have the impact and inconvenience to the appellant for his whole life, in the opinion of this Court, appellant/claimant is entitled to get Rs.50,000/- towards ‘physical and mental pain/agony’ and Rs.50,000/- towards ‘loss of amenities in life’ . It is ordered accordingly. 16. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I find it appropriate to re- compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. Loss of future earning 5,000 x 40% = 2,000/- 2000 x 12 = 24,000/- 24,000 x 18 =4,32,000/- : Rs. 4,32,000 2. Addition towards future prospects @ 40% 4,32,000 x 40 %= 1,72,800/- Rs. 1,72,800 3. Expenditure incurred towards medical treatment : Rs. 3,16,576 4. Expenditure incurred towards transportation/conveyance : Rs. 20,000 5. Expenditure incurred towards nutritious diet : Rs. 10,000 -7- 6. Physical and Mental pain and agony : Rs. 50,000 7. Loss of amenities in life : Rs. 50,000 Total compensation : Rs. 10,51,376/- 17. Now the appellant/claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs.10,51,376/- instead of Rs.8,18,576/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 18. Aforementioned total amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any 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. 19. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein above. Sd/--/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen