1 2025:CGHC:40582 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 656 of 2020 1 - Ramrijhavan Das S/o Late Laxman Das Aged About 32 Years Caste Panika R/o Majhuapara Ward No. 15 Surajpur P. S. Tehsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. Through Next Friend Smt. Santoshi Das W/o Ramrijhavan Das Aged About 35 Years, R/o Majhuapara Ward No. 15 Surajpur P. S. Tehsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ........Claimant., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager E-8 Riico Industrial Area Sitapur Jiyapur (Rajasthan) 302022.......Insurer, District : Jaipur, Rajasthan 2 - Shobhlal Yadav S/o Sunder Lal Yadav Caste Ahir, R/o Gayatri Mandir Road, In Front Of Kasturba Gandhi Balika Aavasiya Vidyalaya Surajpur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ........Owner, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Rohit Kumar Dewangan S/o Ramcharan Dewangan Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Chandarpur Post, P. S. Tehsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ........Driver., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Pawas Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Nishikant Sinha, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Santoshi Yadav, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 12/08/2025 1. Appellant/Claimant filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 award dated 04.02.2020 passed by the 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 13/2018. 2. This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation on the ground that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding less amount of compensation. Loss of income during laid down period, is not awarded. It is contention of counsel for the appellant that after accident, the claimant went into Coma. He was admitted in Shri Ram Krishna Care Hospital on 28.01.2017 and remained admitted for treatment till 25.05.2017. He continuously remained in coma, some progress has been shown to his health. Even on the date of discharge, the claimant was in comma. However, learned Claims Tribunal has not warded any amount of compensation towards loss of income. He contended that learned Claims Tribunal has erroneously taken note of the fact that the Claimants failed to produce documents to show that he did not receive benefit of medical paid leave. He next contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded appropriate amount of compensation towards attendant, pains and sufferings and other heads and prays for enhancement of the amount of compensation suitably. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respective respondents opposes the submission made by the counsel for appellant and would submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of claim case. 3 5. According to the documents available in the records of the claim case accident was of 26.01.2017, F.I.R. was lodged on 31.01.2017. After accident, the appellant was sent for MLC to the government hospital and thereafter, looking to the severe injuries suffered by the appellant/claimant over his head, he was referred to higher hospital for treatment. Appellant was admitted to Ram Krishna Care Hospital, Raipur on 28.01.2017. In discharge summary of the Ram Krishna Care Hospital (Ex. A/24), the nature of injuries as diagnosed by the doctors is mentioned as RTA HEAD INJURY WITH DIFUSED AXONAL INJURY WITH RIGHT TIBIA FIBULA RACTURE WITH RIGHT FEMUR FRACTURE. 6. Appellant was admitted in hospital on 28.01.2017 and discharged on 25.05.2017. From perusal of the condition at the time of discharge of the appellant/injured, it appears that even after more than 04 months of continuous treatment in hospital, the internal injuries suffered by him could not be cured. Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 11,59,389/- towards the medical expenses. However, overlooking the period of admission, condition of the patient on the date of discharge and further observing that, the claimant being the government employee is entitled for medical leave, however, no document or evidence has been placed on record to show that he was not given the benefit of medical paid leave, not awarded compensation towards loss of income during period of treatment, which in the facts of the case is erroneous. Even if, the injured is a government servant and is entitled for some medical leave as per the leave available in his account, however, the medical leave for which, the government servant/appellant is entitled for can be availed by him for any other medical ailment which he would have 4 suffered during the course of his employment and therefore, so far as the compensation to be awarded in the motor-accidental injuries is concerned, I am of the view that the claimant would be entitled for loss of income during the period of treatment. 7. From the discharge summary (Ex. A/24), it is apparent that the appellant/claimant who suffered head injury and was in comma took treatment for about 04 months as inpatient and looking to the condition, he may not have reported to his office for further couple of months. The wife of the appellant/claimant who was examined as PW – 1 before the Claims Tribunal in her examination-in-chief had stated that till her examination-in-chief, i.e. 17.01.2019, the appellant injured was in comma. In cross-examination, this witness was not put to specific question about the physical condition of the appellant/injured that the appellant/injured is not attending to the office or is attending to his office. Dr. S.N. Madhariya is examined as the applicant witness. In his evidence, he stated that looking to little improvement in his condition, the injured was removed from the ventilator. In his cross-examination, when suggestion is given to him that the condition of the patient at the time of discharge was stable, has denied the same and further denied that the patient was able to understand the things. He also denied the suggestion that there is possibility of recovery of the patient fully. He stated that there is possibility that the injured may come out from coma in future, but it is not essential that he will be able to speak and understand the things. From the aforementioned facts of the case and the evidence available on record, nature of injuries suffered by the claimant and further taking note of the fact that the appellant have not submitted any medical prescription of the later date after discharge, as 5 per advise of the doctor to visit hospital again after 10 days, no disability certificate has been placed before this Court, I find it appropriate to award the compensation towards loss of income during laid period for 02 years. The income of the deceased as per pay-slip is proved by the claimants as Rs. 29,486/- per month and therefore, the compensation for 02 years would be Rs. 7,07,664/- (29,486 X 24). It is ordered accordingly. 8. Looking to the nature of injuries, condition of the person in the hospital and at the time of discharge to be in coma and not conscious, I find it appropriate to award the compensation towards attendant for a period of 02 years assessing the expenditure towards attendant to be Rs. 6,000/- per month which would come to Rs. 1,44,000/- (6000 X 24). It is ordered accordingly. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded proper amount of compensation towards the head of pains and suffering but awarded only Rs. 20,000/- which in the facts of the case is much less and therefore, the compensation towards the pains and sufferings is enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- instead of Rs. 20,000/-. Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 18,000/- towards the special diet which is also less and the same is enhanced to Rs. 25,000/-. Further, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5000/- towards conveyance, the claimant was a resident of Surajpur and he took treatment from Ram Krishna Care Hospital, Raipur. At the time of discharge, the appellant/claimant was not in a position to move of his own and therefore, taking note of the facts of the case, I find it appropriate to award Rs. 20,000/- towards conveyance expenses. The Claims Tribunal has not awarded any 6 compensation towards future treatment,in the opinion of this Court, looking to the nature of injuries and the condition of the appellant/claimant as mentioned in the discharge-summary and stated by the doctor in his evidence, I find it appropriate to award Rs. 50,000/- towards the future treatment. Apart from this, he will also be entitled for the medical expenses as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal of Rs. 11,20,389/-. 10. For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellants. S. No. Heads Compensation 1. Loss of income during laid down period : Rs. 7,07,664/- 2. Medical Expenses : (+) Rs. 11,59,389/- 3. Future Medical Treatment : (+) Rs. 50,000/- 4. Pains and sufferings : (+) Rs. 50,000/- 5. Special diet : (+) Rs. 25,000/- 6 Conveyance Expenses : (+) Rs. 20,000/- 6. Attendant : (+) Rs. 1,44,000/- Total Compensation : Rs. 21,56,053/- 11. Now, the Appellant/Claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs. 21,56,053/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 12. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/-/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey