1 2025:CGHC:30115 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 624 of 2019 1. Yogesh Kumar Sahu S/o Bhaiyalal Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Navami Vahini Karli, Present Address House No. 250, Jharpara Pumppur Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant-claimant versus 1. Satender Singh S/o Ramnandan Aged About 43 Years R/o Ward No. 04, Kirandul Tahsil Bacheli District Dantewada Chhattisgarh..........(Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Truck) 2. Barmha Singh S/o Vijay Singh Aged About 44 Years R/o Main Market Kirandul Tahsil Bacheli District Dantewada Chhattisgarh..........(Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Truck) 3. Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited E-8 Epip, Rico Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302022 India..........(Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Truck) ….Respondents For Appellant : Mr. A.L.Singraul, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Santoshi Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr.Utsav Mahiswar, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment on Board 3/7/2025 1. Appellant-claimant has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 31.1.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Bastar (Dantewada) (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.22/2017 by which learned Claims Tribunal allowed application of appellant-claimant in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.54,219/- to claimant/appellant herein, in an injury case. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-claimant has filed an application for compensation pleading that on 21.1.2015 at about 2:15 p.m. when he along with his wife was going to 9th Batallion from Dantewada on his motorcycle, one truck bearing registration mark CG04-JB-2236, driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed the motorcycle as a result claimant and his wife fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Both were admitted in District Hospital, Dantewada for treatment. Looking to nature of injuries, claimant was referred to Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur where he remain admitted for about 10 days. Thereafter, claimant took treatment in Suyush Hospital, Raipur for about one month. It was pleaded by claimant that due to injuries sustained in the accident, he could not join his duty for six months and he is 3 also unable to do the work as he was doing prior to accident. 3. Non-applicant No.1-driver remained ex-parte before the Claims Tribunal. Non-applicant No.2-owner of offending vehicle contested the case by filing reply in which he denied the averments made in claim application. It was pleaded that claimant due to his own negligence fell from the motorcycle and sustained injuries. Non-applicant No.3 also filed reply to claim application denying its liability to indemnify the insured on the ground that driver of offending vehicle was not having valid driving license at the time of accident and that the vehicle was driven without permit and fitness certificate. 4. The Claims Tribunal after considering the pleadings as well as on appreciating the evidence adduced by the respective parties held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. The Tribunal also observed that the Insurance Company has not adduced any evidence to substantiate its claim regarding violation of terms and conditions of policy. Consequently, the Claims Tribunal allowed the claim application in part and awarded compensation of Rs.54,219/- which includes medical expenses of Rs.4,219/-. 5. Learned counsel for appellant would argue that looking to nature of injuries suffered by appellant and period of treatment, the compensation assessed by the Claims Tribunal 4 is on lower side. He contended that appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 30% in his lower limb i.e. left ankle joint stiffness, he will have to bear this disability during rest of his life, but the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of amenities in life. He submits that appellant took treatment at different hospitals for sufficient long time but no compensation is awarded for attendant, conveyance and special diet. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is grossly inadequate and requires enhancement. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 opposes submissions of learned counsel for appellant and submits that the amount of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal is adequate and does not call for any interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record of claim case. 8. Perusal of impugned award reveals that the Claims Tribunal although held that appellant had sustained permanent disability of 30% in his left leg, but not granted any compensation on account of permanent disability recording that appellant though pleaded deprivation from salary and allowances for the period of treatment but failed to produce admissible piece of documentary evidence showing that during the period of his admission in hospital and treatment, 5 he was deprived from his salary etc. and thus, no loss of income has been occasioned to appellant. The Claims Tribunal further held that the appellant is a government servant and as such, he is not entitled for loss of future earnings due to the accident as he has not lost the employment. Even the doctor who treated him has stated about the decrease in percentage of disability by regular exercise and treatment. The Claims Tribunal while disallowing conveyance expenses has recorded that accident occurred in January 2015 and the documents produced by claimant in support of his claim for conveyance expenses are related to journey performed by appellant in the month of November 2016. Further, the claimant submitted that he took treatment as outpatient for the injuries suffered by him in the accident for a period of 108 days, but did not examine the doctor in this regard. 9. The parameters for determining the future loss of income or loss of earning capacity of a Government employee are entirely different than that of a self-employed person or an employee serving in a private Institution. The loss of future earning capacity of a government employee, who continues in service even after accident, is negligible as such employee earns salary, increment, promotion etc. during entire tenure of service, irrespective of any permanent disability incurred by 6 such an employee. Likewise, there would be no loss of income during treatment period to a government employee as he would have claimed medical benefits including medical leave from the employer. 10. In case at hand, from the medical documents brought on record by appellant would show that after the accident dated 21.1.2015, he was taken to Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur, where he was given treatment. It also shows that appellant took further treatment in the OPD of said hospital. As per medical documents available in record, appellant suffered fracture of left tibia which resulted into 30% locomotor disability. Appellant in his evidence has stated that after discharge from hospital, he remained on leave for 108 days and that salary and allowances for the period of treatment has not been paid to him. A fracture normally takes 1 to 3 months to heal up and therefore, there is no doubt the injury (fracture) suffered by appellant herein would have confined him to the bed atleast for a period of three months. Further, the appellant did not avail the leave out of his own volition, but only for treatment of injuries sustained in a road traffic accident, he was forced to go on leave. If there was no accident, appellant could have utilized said leaves for some other necessity or purpose. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the appellant is entitled for compensation under the 7 head of loss of income during treatment for a period of three months. 11.Appellant has pleaded in application and stated in his evidence that at the time of accident, he was posted as Constable in STF Company Batallion, Dantewada and getting salary of Rs.26,000/- per month. Though appellant has not produced any document showing his employment with STF Company but perusal of charge sheet and FIR would show that lodger of report is one Shri Narendra Kumar Khushro, Constable No.418, 9th Battallion, Karli. After the accident, the appellant was sent for medical examination by police vide Ex.A-3, in which applicant is shown to be resident of 9th Battalion Karli, Dantewada. In the disability certificate (Ex.A- 41) issued by the District Medical Board, District Hospital Dantewada, the appellant is shown to be permanent resident of 9th Battalion CAF Karli, Dantewada. The fact that appellant is posted in 9th Battalion CAF Karli, Dantewada could not be controverted by the non-applicants. Thus, it can be safely presumed that appellant is posted in 9th Battalion CAF Karli, Dantewada and under these circumstances, I deem it appropriate to assess monthly income of Rs.20,000/-. Consequently, it is directed that the appellant is entitled for compensation of Rs.60,000/- (20000x3) towards loss of income during period of treatment. 8 12. In case of Raj Kumar vs.Ajay Kumar, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343, Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with aspect of grant of compensation under the head ‘loss of future earnings’ due to permanent disability to a government servant has observed thus:- “14…..."On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, their may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of 'loss of future earnings', if claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of "loss of amenities" as a consequence of losing his hand…..." 13. In case at hand, appellant has suffered 30% permanent disability in relation to his left leg as per disability certificate (Ex.A-41). However, nothing has been brought on record by appellant to prove that due to the injuries/ disability suffered by him as a result of the accident, he was not able to perform his duties or that he has been removed from the services. On the contrary, in his cross-examination, the appellant (AW-1) has fairly admitted that he is continuing in his job with the Department of Police. Since, the appellant is a government employee, such disability has not affected on his income capacity as he is getting regular salary etc., therefore, he is 9 not entitled for compensation towards ‘loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability’. 14. However, taking note of the oral evidence and medical records available on record in particular the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, this Court considers it proper to enhance the compensation under the head of pain and suffering from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.75,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. 15. Believing the medical bills of Ex.A-9 to Ex.A-11 and Ex.A-27 to Ex.A-39, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,219/- towards medical expenses. Learned counsel for appellant failed to point as to which medical bill was not considered and paid by the Claims Tribunal. In absence of any specific submission with respect to non-award of any particular bill, submission of learned counsel for appellant that the entire medical claim has not been considered and awarded by the Claims Tribunal is not sustainable and it is hereby repelled. 16. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part and it is directed that now appellant-claimant will be entitled for a sum of Rs.1,39,219/- (75000+60000+4219) as compensation instead of Rs.54,219/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. This amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of application till actual payment is made. Any amount disbursed to appellants pursuant to impugned 10 award will be adjusted. 17.The impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/