1 / 4 2025:CGHC:37615 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 746 of 2025 1. Jageshwar Netam (Died) through Lrs. 1.1 Neera Bai W/o Jageshwar Netam Aged About 30 Years 1.2 Sonu Netam S/o Jageshwar Netam Aged About 8 Years Through His Natural Guardian Mother Appellant No. 1 Neera Bai 1.3 Monu Netam S/o Jageshwar Netam Aged About 6 Years Through His Natural Guardian Mother Appellant No. 1 Neera Bai. All are R/o Rudri Colony Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) --- Appellants/ Non-applicant No.2 versus 1. Akshay Yadav S/o Miluram Yadav Aged About 18 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Kamin Bai W/o Miluram Yadav, R/o Nayapara, Mahima Sagar Ward, Gokulpur Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.) (Claimant) 2. Sharad Yadav S/o Gendlal Yadav Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Maradev, Police Station Rudri, Tahsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.) (non-applicant No. 1/Driver) ---Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mrs. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 31/07/2025 1. Appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”), challenging the award dated 15.11.2019 passed by Learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 63/2017, PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 4 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 9,38,332/- as compensation in motor accidental injury case, fastened liability to satisfy amount of compensation upon non-applicants No. 1 & 2- driver and owner. 2. The motor accident occurred on 23.11.2014 at about 07:00 pm, near Durga Manch Chowk, PHE office, Rudri, by a motorcycle bearing number CG05-N- 3028 (hereinafter referred to as “offending motorcycle”) by its driver non- applicant No. 1 while driving it rashly and negligently due to which permanent injuries suffered to applicant is not in dispute. Appellants have filed this appeal on the ground of wrong computation of award of compensation in the facts of case. 3. For the foregoing discussion, this Court is not dealing with the facts of accident as pleaded by the parties in their claim application, reply to the claim application and further adverted in the impugned award but only considering submission of counsel for respective parties on the computation of compensation by Claims Tribunal. 4. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that the Claims Tribunal erred in awarding excessive amount of compensation to the claimant by computing compensation towards disability twice, one is ₹ 4,86,000 towards loss of dependency and another towards permanent disability of ₹ 3,88,800 and both the amounts are added and awarded by the Claims Tribunal which is erroneous in the facts of the case. 5. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants and would submit that the amount of compensation computed and awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper, hence, it does not call for any interference. She submits that claimant suffered 80% permanent disability due to motor accidental injuries. Dr. Vinod Kumar 3 / 4 Pandey examined as AW-3, in his evidence stated that the claimant will remain disabled for his entire life and he will not be able to do any work. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 7. Claimant in his claim application has pleaded that deceased suffered grievous head injuries in the motor accident. He was initially admitted to hospital at Dhamtari and thereafter took treatment from Ram Krishna Care Hospital, Raipur. The Disability Certificate is filed as Ext. 11C, wherein it is mentioned that Traumatic Hemiplegia left side post head injury and disability is mentioned as 80%. This Disability Certificate is issued by Medical Board in which it is also mentioned that there is no requirement of re-examination. 8. To prove the Disability Certificate, claimant examined Dr. Vinod Kumar Pandey as AW-3. In his evidence, he stated that due to head injury, his left side of the body is not functioning (left side hemiplegia). He being one of the members of Medical Board, issued the Disability Certificate of 80%. In his evidence, he stated that due to motor accidental injuries, applicant became disabled for whole of his life and will not be able to do any work. This witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for non-applicant no. 1 therein, however, nothing elicited to controvert his evidence with regard to permanent disability, percentage of disability and his statement that claimant will not be able to do any work for his entire life. 9. In the aforementioned evidence available of a doctor (expert in field) would show that in fact the loss of income of claimant would be 100%, it was though not considered by the Claims Tribunal. 10. So far as the submission of learned counsel for appellants that the income of claimant is assessed as ₹ 4500 per month to be on higher side is concerned, pleadings made in the claim application with regard to income of claimant was ₹ 4500 per month ie., ₹ 150 per day. The date of accident is 23.11.2014 and minimum wages fixed for the period from 01.10.2014 to 31.03.2015 for 4 / 4 unskilled labourer was ₹ 5617 per month. Tribunal assessed income of deceased as per the income pleaded in the claim application which cannot be said to be on higher side. 11. So far as the submission of learned counsel of appellant with respect to award of compensation towards disability is added twice, one towards loss of dependency and another towards permanent disability is concerned, the mode of assessment of learned Claims Tribunal appears to be erroneous, it cannot be said to be correct, however, considering the fact that the claimant suffered 80% permanent disability and as per evidence of doctor, he suffered 100% loss of income and further the Claims Tribunal has not added compensation towards future prospects which would be 40% of the assessed income for computing the amount of compensation towards loss of income. Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation under other heads like attendant, pain and suffering, loss of amenities in life etc. which will definitely enhance the compensation and could have been awarded to claimant. As there is no cross-appeal filed by claimant, this Court is not considering this aspect for enhancing compensation. It is to be looked into whether the compensation awarded is just and fair or it is much higher like bonanza. 12. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I do not find that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal of ₹ 9,38,332 is so excessive like bonanza. 13. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any good ground to interfere the impugned award passed by learned Claims Tribunal. The appeal being sans merit, it is liable to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn