-1- 2025:CGHC:13838 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 611 of 2020 Sushil Kumar S/o Puranlal Agrawal, Aged About 46 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. At Present-P-46, Kavita Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.............Claimant ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Vikas Kumar S/o Rajkumar Santwani, Aged About 19 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Sindhi Colony, Jarhabhatha, Police Station Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Car I-22 No. C.G.-10-H-7770) 2 - Smt. Prabha Bajaj W/o Vijay Bajaj, R/o Laxmi Provision Stores, Sindhi Colony, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Owner of Car I-22 No. C.G.-10-H-7770) 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through The Branch Manager, Branch Office- Second Floor, Rama Trade Center, In Front of Rajeev Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of Car I-22 No. C.G.-10-H-7770) ... Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Ms. Pranoti Das, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Resp. No.3 : Mr. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.03.27 10:39:51 +0530 -2- 22/03/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case 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 First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (CG) vide award dated 4th January 2020 passed in Claim Case No.155 of 2016. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 15.07.2012, appellant- Sushil Kumar along with one Pawan Sharma was coming from Sakti to Janjgir on a motorcycle. When they reached in front of Jetha railway station, Baradwar, non-applicant No.1 hit the motorcycle while driving his car rashly and negligently, due to which, appellant suffered serious injuries. 4. Appellant filed application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the learned Sixth Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, seeking compensation on the ground that his right leg was fractured in the accident, the toe and thumb bone of the right foot were broken, for which surgery was done by inserting a rod. He has been treated at Government Hospital, Sakti and Visharda Hospital, Raipur. Before the accident, the applicant used to earn Rs. 25,000/- per month by working as a Paddy Broker, but due to permanent -3- disability caused in the accident he become unable to do his work and he has suffered loss of income of Rs. 10,00,000/-, expenses of treatment of Rs. 1,75,000/-, expenses towards future treatment of Rs. 2,00,000/-, expenses for attendant of Rs. 75,000/-, for transportation Rs. 40,000/-, for nutritious food Rs. 50,000/-, for mental and physical suffering Rs.2,00,000/- and for disability Rs. 10,00,000/-, thus, claimed total compensation of Rs. 27,40,000/-. It was further averred in the claim application that non-applicant No.1 is the driver, non-applicant No.2 is the registered owner and non-applicant No.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle by which he suffered physical disability due to the accident. He prayed for grant of compensation of Rs.27,40,000/- from the non- applicants jointly or severally with interest @ 18 %. 5. Non-applicants No. 01 and 02 have been proceeded ex-parte in the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal, no reply has been filed on their behalf. 6. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed its written statement denying all the allegations made in the claim application and pleaded that there was no accident with the vehicle car. The alleged accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle driver, therefore, the applicant/claimant is not entitled to get compensation. The driver of the motorcycle did not have a valid and effective driving license. The motorcycle driver was also contributory -4- negligent in the accident. On the date of accident, non- applicant No.1 did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle and the owner of the vehicle, knowing that non-applicant No.1 does not have a valid driving license, has intentionally violated the conditions of the insurance policy by getting the vehicle driven by non- applicant No.1, therefore, non-applicant No.3 is not responsible to give any compensation. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of incident, 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 resulting in his permanent disability. Claim of contributory negligence raised by the respondent No.3/Insurance Company is not found proved, non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company could not prove that the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy, learned Claims Tribunal held non-applicant No.3/Insurance company liable to satisfy the amount of compensation. Assessing annual income of the applicant/claimant as Rs.2,90,791/- and calculating the loss suffered by the claimants under different heads, awarded compensation of compensation of Rs.2,44,252/ -. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant raises a short point for -5- enhancement of the amount of compensation that though the appellant has produced Ex.P-39, the permanent disability certificate which is proved by Dr. Harisingh Chandel (AW2), however, learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation towards loss of income due to permanent disability and further that the amount of compensation awarded on other heads is also on lower side and, therefore, amount of compensation needs to be enhanced suitably. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/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. He submits that the doctor who has been examined to prove the ‘disability certificate’ has not treated the appellant and further the doctor in his statement clearly stated that the appellant suffered disability only in movement and it is not proved that appellant suffered loss of income due to disability’ if any’ suffered by him looking to the nature of his occupation. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. 11. In this case, it is undisputed that non-applicant No.1 is the -6- driver of the vehicle, non-applicant No.2 is the owner and non-applicant No.3 is the insurer. Motor accidental injury suffered by the appellant, liability to satisfy the amount of compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal upon non- applicant No.3/Insurance Company is also not in dispute. Short point raised by learned counsel for the appellant/claimant in this appeal is that no amount has been awarded towards loss of income due to permanent disability suffered by the appellant to the extent of 40%. 12. The appellant/claimant in support of his case before the Claims Tribunal, has placed on record disability certificate as Ex.P-39 in which nature of disability is mentioned as ‘disability in movement’ and it is mentioned as “Ankylosis (Rt.) knee & ankle”. Perusal of the disability certificate (Ex.P- 39) would show that it is issued under the seal and signature of single doctor who is not the treating doctor. Though on the left corner of the top of document Ex.P-39 there is seal of District Medical Board, however, there is no signature of other members of Medical Board, hence, the certificate produced as Ex.P-39 cannot be treated to be a certificate issued by the Medical Board. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I do not find any error in the finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal in disbelieving the disability certificate. 13. From the case as projected by the applicant/claimant before -7- the Claims Tribunal it appears that he is not performing physical labour work for the purpose of earning his livelihood but as per evidence available on record and the pleadings made, he is working as Paddy Broker, from which it is appearing that the nature of injury/permanent disability is not having any effect in the earning capacity of the appellant and it is not even the case of the appellant as per the pleading and his evidence as led by him before the Learned Claims Tribunal. However, it cannot be overlooked that the nature of permanent disability will have the impact and inconvenience to the appellant for his whole life. Learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation towards loss of amenities in life overlooking the age of appellant to be 46 years only on the date of accident. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I am of the view that the appellant/claimant is also entitled to get Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities in life due to disability suffered by him. 14. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.13,252/- towards medical expenses, Rs.1,45,000/- towards loss of income, Rs.50,000/- towards physical and mental suffering and Rs.36,000/- towards transportation, nutritious food and ancillary expenses, in total Rs.2,44,252/-. Though the learned Claims Tribunal has considered that the appellant suffered permanent ‘disability in his movement’, it has not awarded any amount of compensation towards loss of amenities in life overlooking the age of appellant to be 46 -8- years only on the date of accident. 15. Thus, in addition to the amount of compensation of Rs.2,44,252/- already awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal, claimant/ appellant would also entitled for additional compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities. Now the appellants/claimant is awarded the total compensation of Rs.2,74,252/- (2,44,252 + 30,000) . 16. The amount of Rs.30,000/- which is now being awarded additionally towards loss of amenities shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimant/appellant shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated 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/--/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen