Page No.1 2025:CGHC:13837 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 625 of 2020 1. Tarun Yadav S/o Vinod Aged About 27 Years Resident Of Shanichari Padav, Behind Fish Market , Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1. Hirendra Tiwari S/o Jag Kumar Aged About 35 Years Resident of Village Singarpur, Police Station Mungeli, District Mungeli (CG) 2. Neelima Dubey W/o Shyam Lal Aged About 24 Years Resident of B-12, Mahima Tower Jarhabhatha , Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Second Address Ward No. 18, Ajadnagar, Masanganj, Bilaspur , Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3. Royal Sunderam Allians Insurance Company Ltd. Through Manager , Royal Sunderam Allians Insurance Company Ltd. Address Head Office No. 1, Second Floor Subramriyam, Building Club House Road, Chennai 600002. .. Respondents _______________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Banhiman Roy, Advocate For Respondent No.1 & 2 : None For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 22/03/2025 1. Appellant-claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by learned 8th Additional Motor Page No.2 Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 30.10.2019 passed in Claim Case No.519/2018. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that 20.2.2014 appellant along with relative Pawan Yadav was coming to Bilaspur on a motorcycle and when he reached at Tifra High Tec Bus Stand Bilaspur, the vehicle bearing registration number CG10-NA- 5200, being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver – non-applicant No.1, came to appellant’s side, dashed motorcycle of appellant as a result he fell down and suffered grievous injuries. He was taken to District Hospital, Bilaspur from where primary treatment was given to him and thereafter he was advised to consult super-specialist Ortho Surgeon. Appellant admitted in Lalchandani Hospital, Bilaspur where he was treated and during his treatment, he underwent leg surgery and a rod & plate was implanted. Due to injuries sustained in said accident, his one leg has shortened; he has still not recovered and hip-joint replacement surgery is yet to be performed. Accident was reported in Police Station Sirgitti Bilaspur based on which Crime No.43/14 for alleged offence under Sections 279 & 337 of IPC. 3. Claimant/appellant herein filed application claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.19,20,000/- under various heads on the ground that prior to accident, he was able bodied healthy person, working as Electrician but after the incident, he Page No.3 has become permanently disabled and unable to earn. 4. Non-applicant No.1 & 2 resisted the claim by filing their reply. It was pleaded by them that the claimant has not filed any document with respect to his income nor any document showing his hospitalization, treatment and surgery. He has not suffered any disablement. Any accident was not caused by the offending vehicle. On the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3 and compensation, if any, is awarded to the claimant, then the insurance company being insurer is liable to be pay the same. 5. Non-applicant No.3- Insurance Company also submitted its written statement denying the averments made in claim application. It was pleaded that appellant himself was responsible for the accident, he was not having valid license to drive the motorcycle and therefore, non-applicants are not liable to pay any compensation to him. Claim application is filed on false grounds, hence, appellant is not entitle to get any compensation. 6. The Claims Tribunal after appreciating the pleadings and evidence placed on record (oral and documentary both) by the respective parties has arrived at a conclusion that accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 and accordingly, partly allowed claim application, awarded compensation Rs.3,31,269/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellant submits that at the Page No.4 time of accident, appellant was 27 years of age and was in good health, he was working as an electrician and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. In the accident, appellant suffered grievous injuries like fracture of pelvis bone, dislocation of left hip joint etc. Aftermath of the accident is that the appellant has suffered severe injuries resulting into permanent disability and due to which, he now faces difficulty in moving his lower limbs making him incapacitated to a great extent for doing the work of electrician actively, thereby severely affecting his earning capacity. He further submitted that the accident has made him dependent on others for executing day to day routine work and has caused hindrance in enjoying the amenities of life. He submits that looking to the nature of injuries and period of treatment of appellant as inpatient, the amount awarded under the head grievous injuries, special diet, pains and sufferings is on lower side. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be enhanced, as per latest law. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 Insurance Company argues that the amount of compensation as assessed and granted by the learned Claims Tribunal does not call for any interference. He prays for dismissal of the present appeal. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. In the instant case the factum of accident is not disputed. Sufferance of injuries by claimant are also not disputed. Page No.5 11. Perusal of discharge certificate (Ex.P-51) would show that appellant was admitted in hospital on 23.2.2014, discharged on 27.2.2014 and surgery was performed on 26.2.2014. Diagnosis column of discharge summary mentions “dislocation of left hip”. Dr. B.L. Lalchandani (PW-2), who treated appellant, has stated in statement before the Claims Tribunal that there was fracture in left hip joint and cap of appellant which was operated by him on 26.2.2014 and he had advised for re-surgery of hip joint, non-performance of which may result in disablement of appellant. 12. Thus, considering the nature of injury suffered by appellant coupled with statement of the doctor (PW-2) that appellant requires further surgery to recover, it can be safely presumed that he would not have been able to work atleast for a period of six months or so. Hence, in opinion of this Court, the appellant is entitled for compensation under the head of loss of income during the period of treatment, which has not been awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Appellant has pleaded in his claim application and stated in his statement that at the time of accident, he was working as an Electrician, earning Rs.30,000/- per month but failed to produce any documentary or admissible piece of evidence before the Claims Tribunal to prove his income. This being the position, the income of appellant is taken as minimum wages of a unskilled worker prevalent on the date of accident i.e. on 20.2.2014, which was Rs.5,163/- per month. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.30,978/- (5163x6) is awarded to the Page No.6 appellant under the head of loss of income during period of treatment. 13. Believing the medical bills (Ex.P-6 to Ex.P-44), prescription Ex.P-45, 47 to 51; discharge ticket (Ex.P-51) and cash receipt (Ex.P-52) produced by appellant, which could not be controverted by opposite side, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,168/- and Rs.36,100/- for medical treatment expenses, which does not call for any interference. Further, considering the evidence of the doctor (AW-2) that appellant would require surgery in future, awarded a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards future medical expenses. From the specific evidence of Dr. B. Lalchandani (AW-2), the appellant has been able to prove his requirement of future surgery and expenses thereon and being so, the Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation towards future medical treatment. 14. From the medical documents available in record and the fact that appellant suffered injury on his left hip-joint and even after surgery, he did not recover fully and would require surgical interventions in future, therefore, it can be safely presumed that after accident dated 20.2.2014, appellant must have required one attendant, whether paid or family member and he must have taken special diet for the purpose of speedy recovery. However, from the impugned award it is clear that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards special diet and attendant. Further, looking to the nature of injury and the part of Page No.7 body where injury was suffered by appellant, appellant must have suffered continuous mental-physical pain and agony and therefore, amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal under the head ‘pains and sufferings’ is on lower side. 15. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.30,978/- towards loss of income during treatment for a period of six months, a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards special diet; Rs.10,000/- towards attendant and a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering in place of Rs.10,000/- as awarded by Claims Tribunal. Thus, now appellant is entitled for a total sum of Rs.3,97,247/- (286100+30169+30978+10000+10000+30000). This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of application till its realization. 16. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. Amount already disbursed pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted. 17.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/- SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI