1 / 2 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 623 of 2020 RUSTAM JOSHI versus SATNAM SINGH @ SONU SINGH Order on Board 08/05/2025 Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate for Appellant. Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for Resp. No. 3. None appeared for Resp. No. 1 & 2, though served. Office report shows that the notice sent to Respondents No. 1 & 2 (driver and the owner owner of the offending vehicle) is reported to be unserved with a note that “not residing on given address”. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon non-applicants jointly and severally and first liability to satisfy award is upon Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company, which is represented by the counsel, hence, service of notice upon Resp. No. 1 & 2 may be dispensed with. PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 2 pwn Learned counsel for Resp. No. 3 does not dispute the submission made by learned counsel for appellant with regard to liability to satisfy the award. In the above facts of the case and the submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties that the first liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon Insurance Co. and this appeal is for enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, service of notice upon Respondents No. 1 & 2 is dispensed with. With the consent of the parties, case is heard finally. Order passed separately. Signed and dated. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge 1 / 9 2025:CGHC:21178 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M A C No. 623 of 202 0 • Rustam Joshi S/o Prem Kumar Joshi Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Parasathi, Post Office Bendri, Police Station And Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Appellant/ Claimant versus 1. Satnam Singh @ Sonu Singh S/o Jogendra Singh @ Raju Singh R/o Indira Nivas Kumhari, Police Station Kumhari District Durg Chhattisgarh ......Non Applicant No. 1/ Driver Of Vehicle Truck No. C. G. 04 JA 5431 2. Kudrat Singh S/o Darbara Singh R/o Saraswati Nagar, Kumhari Near Varchaman Auto Police Station Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh ......Non Applicant No. 2/ Owner Of Vehicle Truck No. C. G. 04 JA 5431 3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager (Division No. 2) The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Life Insurance Office, Pandari Raipur Police Station Pandri Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ......Non Applicant No. 3/ Insurer of Vehicle Truck No. C. G. 04 JA 5431 --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate For Resp. No. 3 : Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 08/05/2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 24.10.2019 passed by Learned Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 754/2016, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 9 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 7,36,535/- as compensation. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 24.11.2015 at about 10.30 am in village Parsathi under police station Aabhanpur, district Raipur, non-applicant no. 1 drove the vehicle truck no. CG 04-JA/5431 (henceforth “offending vehicle”) carelessly and parked it in the middle of the road between the electric wire. Offending vehicle was loaded with paddy sacks which started touching the wires. On the instruction of non-applicant no. 1 to lift aside the cable wire, applicant lifted the cable wire stuck to the paddy sack. At the same time, non-applicant no. 1 drove the offending vehicle forward negligently in which right hand of applicant holding the cable wire touched the high power voltage wire, due to which applicant suffered electric shock, his right hand got burnt. The applicant was admitted to Kalda Hospital in Raipur in an injured condition. After that he was admitted in Mekahara Hospital from 26.11.2015 to 12.12.2015. 3. Appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking ₹ 43,65,000/- as compensation pleading therein that on the date of accident applicant was aged about 26 years healthy person. He is sole breadwinner of his family. At the time of the accident, the applicant was doing the work of mason and was earning ₹ 9,000/- per month and maintaining himself and his family. Due to accident and permanent disability, applicant suffered loss of income. 4. Non-applicant No. 1/ Respondent No. 1-Driver of offending vehicle did not appear before the trial court, therefore, he was proceeded ex parte. 5. Non-applicant No. 2/ Respondent No. 2/ owner of the offending vehicle filed his reply to the claim application, denying all the adverse pleadings made therein, it was further pleaded that applicant himself is responsible 3 / 9 for the said accident. Non-applicant no.1/ driver did not drive the offending vehicle carelessly. The driver had parked his vehicle at the right place and did not collide with the electric wire. It is stated that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant no. 3 and therefore, the liability to pay the compensation, if any, lies with the insurance company. 6. Non-applicant No. 3/ Resp. No. 3-Insurance Company in its reply, apart from accepting the undisputed facts, has denied the pleadings made in the application and further stated that the accident occurred due self negligence of the applicant. On the date of accident, non-applicant no. 1 did not have a valid and effective license to drive the offending vehicle and the vehicle was being driven without a valid, fitness and permit. It was pleaded that the applicant was neither an employee, labourer in the offending vehicle nor was owner of the paddy sacks filled in the said vehicle, nor being a representative of the owner, therefore he is not entitled to receive the claim amount or any compensation amount from the insurance company under the Motor Vehicles Act. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that applicant/appellant suffered grievous injuries due to rash and negligent driving of truck by non-applicant no. 1. Breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found to be proved. Tribunal holding first liability of the non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 7,36,535/- as total compensation with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application. 8. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre amount of compensation. He contended that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of appellant on lower 4 / 9 side overlooking the fact that the appellant-claimant has pleaded in the claim application that he was working as mason and also stated before the court in his deposition, however the monthly income of appellant assessed is only ₹ 5,000/- which is much less then the prevailing wages. He next contended that the appellant suffered 64% permanent disability which is also assessed by the Claims Tribunal, however, Claims Tribunal erred in not adding amount towards loss of future prospects and the amount of compensation awarded on other heads is also on lower side. Hence, the impugned award be suitably enhanced. 9. Learned counsel for Respondent 3-Insurance Company vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal considering entirety of the facts and circumstance of the case and further that the appellant failed to prove his occupation and income by placing admissible piece of evidence, assessed income of appellant on notional basis and has awarded just and proper compensation which does not call for any interference.. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. 11. The motor vehicular injuries suffered by the appellant by the offending vehicle is not in dispute. Respondent No. 3 being the insurer of the vehicle is also not in dispute. Learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the application filed by appellant for grant of compensation in part and fastened liability to satisfy the amount upon driver, owner and the insurance company jointly and severally. The submission of learned counsel for appellant that the first liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company is also not in dispute. The first ground raised by learned counsel for appellant with respect to assessment of income by the Claims Tribunal to be on lower side. In the claim application, appellant has pleaded that on the date of 5 / 9 accident he was doing the work of mason and earning ₹ 9,000/- per month, however, perusal of record would show that except the self statement there is no clinching piece of evidence to prove nature of occupation and income as pleaded in the claim application. Hence, in the aforementioned facts of the case, learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing the income of appellant on notional basis. However, in absence of prove of nature of occupation and income, it is for the Court/ Tribunal to assess the income of claimant/ deceased on notional basis keeping in mind the wage structure prevailing, price index, cost of living and also can take help of minimum wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Therefore, I find it appropriate to take help of the minimum wages fixed for calculating the amount of compensation. During the period from 01.10.2015 till 31.03.2016 the minimum wages fixed for unskilled labourer is ₹ 5,787/- per month, it is rounded off to as ₹ 5,800/- per month. Accordingly, the income of appellant is assessed as ₹ 5,800/- per month. 12. The second ground raised by the counsel for appellant is that the Tribunal erred in not adding any amount towards future prospects to the assessed income of appellant. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 has considered the addition of amount in the assessed monthly income of claimant/ deceased and it is held that where the deceased was self employed there shall be an addition of 40% of the assessed monthly income and where there is permanent employment there shall be addition of 50%, where the age of deceased is less than 40 years, in case when age is 40 to 50 years there shall be addition of 25% and similarly when the deceased was aged about 50 to 60 years there shall be addition of 10% for self employed and 15% for permanent employment. In the case at hand, age of appellant on the date of accident was found 26 years and therefore there shall be addition of 6 / 9 40% of the assessed income to the monthly income of appellant. It is ordered accordingly. 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sidram vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439 has held as under: “31. It is now a well-settled position of law that even in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future prospects as well. We have come across many orders of different tribunals and unfortunately affirmed by different High Courts, taking the view that the claimant is not entitled to compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. That is not a correct position of law. There is no justification to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading is illogical because it denies altogether the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in accident cases — and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim's death.” 14. In the case of Chandramani Nanda vs. Sarat Chandra Swain & Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2859 Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 7 / 9 of appellant was 32 years at the time of accident, he is entitled to 40% future prospects.” In view of the aforementioned decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where the injured/claimant suffered permanent disability, there should be addition of loss of future prospects based on the age of the deceased as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 15. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 50,000/- towards pains and sufferings, Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance expenses and special diet, Rs. 10000/- is awarded towards attendant, the amount awarded in the aforementioned heads appears to be on lower side in the facts of the case where the appellant suffered amputation of his hand below elbow. Appellant is a young boy who suffered amputation of right hand below elbow apart from physical and mental agony and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, appellant is entitled for ₹ 50,000/- towards mental and physical agony. Appellant took treatment as an in-patient from 26.11.2015 to 12.12.2015 from Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur and thereafter from 08.02.2016 to 18.02.2016 from Kalda Cosmetic Surgery Institute and Burn Centre, Raipur. From the aforementioned facts of the case, it appears that the appellant remained admitted for more than one month and took treatment as an in-patient. During period of treatment, he suffered loss of income and has also required attendant. Appellant even after the treatment might have needed help of attendant, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, appellant would be entitled for compensation under the head of attendant for a period of 03 months. As the monthly income of a labourer is fixed as ₹ 5,800/- therefore the compensation under the head of attendant would be ₹ 17,400/- (₹ 5800X3). Looking to the nature of injury and mental and physical agony which the appellant suffered, appellant might not have worked for 03 months and therefore he is entitled for loss of income for three months which would 8 / 9 be ₹ 17,400/- (₹ 5800X3). Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of amenities in life, appellant is aged about 26 years on the date of accident and he has to live his remaining life with the said disability which will also cause inconvenience to appellant for doing all his day to day work and activities. Appellant could not be able to enjoy his social and married life as a normal person and therefore, in the facts of the case, I find it appropriate to award ₹ 50,000/- towards loss of amenities in life. Appellant would also be entitled for sum of ₹ 15,000/- towards special and nutritious diet and ₹ 10,000/- for conveyance expenses. 16. For the foregoing reasons, I find it appropriate to recompute the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellant claimant as under. 17. Income of deceased is assessed as ₹ 5,800/- per month. Upon adding 40% of the income of the appellant towards future prospects, as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), monthly income of appellant would come to ₹ 8,120/- and the yearly income of will come to ₹ 97,440/-. Upon applying multiplier of 17 (for the age group 26-30 years) to the annual loss of dependency as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, total loss of dependency will come to ₹ 16,56,480/- [₹ 97,440x17]. As the appellant suffered 64% permanent disability, therefore, total loss of dependency would come to ₹ 10,60,147/- (64% of ₹ 16,56,480). 18. Now the appellant-claimant shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 12,19,947/- [₹ 10,60,147 + ₹ 50,000 + ₹ 17,400 + ₹ 17,400+ ₹ 50,000 + ₹ 15,000 + ₹ 10,000] instead of ₹ 7,36,535/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Other conditions of the 9 / 9 impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount paid to the appellant- claimant pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. 19. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn