1 2025:CGHC:27945 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 719 of 2019 1 - Ankit Giri Goswami S/o Hemant Giri Goswami Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Maroud, Post Maroud, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1 - Chintaram Sahu S/o Mehataruram Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Koliyari, Post Bhakhara, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle Tata Pickup Bearing No. C.G. 04-Ld-1047). 2 - Lokeshwar Sahu S/o Jodhanram Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Mura, Post Darba, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle Tata Pickup Bearing No. C.G. - 04-Ld-1047). 3 - Branch Manager Chola Mandalam, M.S. General Insurance Company, Through House 2nd Floor Simran Tower Behind Lic Bhawan, Pandri, Post Pandri, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle Tata Pickup Bearing No. C.G. - 04-Ld- 1047). --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advodate For Respondent No 3 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 26/06/2025 1. Claimant/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurud, District – Dhamtari (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 07.09.2018 passed in Claim BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 Case No.96/2017 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.6,29,098/- as compensation in an injury case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that a claim application U/s.166 of the Act, 1988 was filed by the claimant/injured seeking compensation of Rs.15,50,000/- against the injury suffered by him in the road accident pleading therein that on 24.02.2017, appellant was travelling in a new sold scooty along with his friend Tejender Singh Thakur and returning back from Rajim Mela to village Maroud when they reached near turning of village Dongitarai, vehicle Tata Pickup bearing No.C.G.-04-LD-1047 dashed the scooty driven by appellant, in which, both the riders suffered grievous injuries. Tejender Singh Thakur died on account of the head injury suffered by him. Ankit Giri Goswami also sustained severe injuries on his left leg, right arm and shoulder, ribs, jaw and on other parts of body. He was immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Abhanpur and thereafter to Ram Krishna Care Hospital, Raipur. Incident was reported to the concerned police station based upon which, crime was registered. 3. The Insurance Company along with owner and driver of the offending vehicle filed their reply to the claim application and resisted the claim of appellants/claimants. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.6,29,098/- fastening the liability upon the non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company. 4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation overlooking the 3 nature of injury and the period of treatment underwent by the appellant. It is contented that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding lump sum amount of Rs.30,000/- under the head of pain and suffering, special diet and attendant etc. No amount has been awarded for loss of income during laid down period, hence, the amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, which does not call for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7. The learned Claims Tribunal on appreciation of pleadings and evidence recorded a finding that the appellant failed to prove the nature of employment and income as pleaded in the claim application, assessed the income of the injured as Rs.4,500/- per month treating him to be as labourer. True it is that appellant could not able to prove the nature of employment as also the income by producing clinching evidence. However, in the facts of the case, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken the factors like rise in price index, place of resident, date of accident and the wages prevailing in the State. The learned Claims Tribunal could have also taken note of minium wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act for the purpose of assessing income of the appellant. Considering entirety of the facts of the case as also the minimum wages fixed by the 4 competent authority prevailing from October, 2016 till March, 2017 for unskilled labour of Rs.6206/- per month, I find it appropriate to accept the income of the appellant as pleaded and stated in the claim application as Rs.6,000/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 8. Perusal of the document – discharge summary (Ex.P-7) of Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur would show that appellant was admitted in the hospital from 25.02.2017 till 16.03.2017. Perusal of the document Ex.P-7 would further show that appellant suffered left femur shaft fracture with right humerus fracture with right middle finger middle phalanx fracture with right 9th, 10th, rib fracture with right lung contusion with right side minimal pleural effusion with right minimal perienphric collection with right acetabular roof fracture with head injury. On perusal of the aforesaid document it reveals that the appellant sustained multiple fractures and underwent inpatient treatment for about 20 days at Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur. In the aforementioned facts of the case and looking to the nature of injuries, in the opinion of this Court, the appellant could not able to perform his work for a period of three months, therefore, he is entitled for compensation towards the loss of income during the laid down period for the period of three months i.e. Rs.6,000 x 3 = Rs.18,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. 9. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering, special diet and attendant, which in the opinion of this Court is too less looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of injury suffered and the period of treatment as inpatient, which is required to be enhanced. 5 Accordingly, a sum of Rs.20,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards attendant and Rs.15,000/- towards special diet is awarded. Award of Rs.5,98,098/- awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal towards medical expenses is not disputed by the appellant, therefore, it is affirmed. 10. On the basis of above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :- S.N. Head Amount. (Rs) 1. Loss of income during laid down period : 18,000.00 2. For pain and suffering : 20,000.00 3. For attendant : 10,000.00 4. For special diet : 15,000.00 5. For medical expense : 5,99,098.00 Total Compensation : 6,62,098.00 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs. 6,62,098.00. Any amount paid to the appellant as compensation as per award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. 12. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram