1 2025:CGHC:48437 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 711 of 2019 * - Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. 1st Floor Hinduja Complex 22 Paras Nagar Chowk Near Railway Line Devendra Nagar Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Through Manager Legal 2nd Floor Simaran Tower, In Front Of LIC Building Pandri, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ... Appellant/Insurance Company Versus 1 - Sushant Patra S/o Hare Krishana Patra Aged About 28 Years Mechanical Engineer, R/o Jamgaon Tehsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Rashpal Singh @ Raja S/o Jogendra Singh Aged About 25 Years R/o Hugli, Presently R/o Through Murari Lal Agarwal Transporter Village - Kolaibhal (Jamgaron) Tehsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Murari Lal Agarwal S/o Nandkishor Agarwal Aged About 34 Years Village - Kolaibhal Jamgaon, Tehsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant/Insurance Company : Ms. Shristi Upadhyay, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. D.L. Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent No. 3/Owner : Mr. Sourabh Burman, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2/ Claimant & Driver : None Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 19/09/2025 1. The appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the quantum of Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.09.24 11:07:31 +0530 2 compensation passed by the Ist Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 69/2014 dated 06.10.2018, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal awarded compensation in favour of the claimant to the tune of Rs.22,86,716/- with interest @ 09% per annum. 2. Ms. Shristi Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that in the motor accident, occurred on 08.11.2010, respondent No. 1/claimant sustained grievous injuries. She would submit that he was hospitalized in Kirodimal District Hospital, Raigarh and thereafter he was referred to O.P. Jindal Hospital and Research Center, Raigarh and Calcutta Medical Research Institute Kolkatta. The claimant was operated 06 times, he underwent plastic surgery and bone grafting. His permanent disability was assessed by the Medical Board to the extent of 60% as he became unable to walk without support of foot drop splint. She would contend that the claimant was working on the post of Engineer and he is still in service, but the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed functional disability to the extent of 60%. She would submit that as the claimant is still working on the post of Training Engineer and there is no loss in earning, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed the functional disability to the extent of 25% or 30%. She would pray to set aside the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. 3. On the other hand, Sourabh Burman, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3/owner would oppose. He would contend that the learned Claims Tribunal has passed just and proper award and the contention made by learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance 3 Company was considered by the learned Claims Tribunal in Para- 13 of the award. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the learned Claims Tribunal. 5. Perusal of the record would show that the claimant was appointed as Training Engineer in MSP Company and he was getting stipend of Rs.9,000/- per month, his services were regularized in the year 2011 and at that time his salary was Rs.12,158/- per month and in the year 2018, his salary was Rs.17,044/- per month. The learned Claims Tribunal has further observed that prior to accident, the claimant was working in the plant, but thereafter he has to work in the office and therefore, his name was not considered for further promotion, whereas the Training Engineers who were appointed along with the claimant have already been promoted to the higher post and they are getting higher salary than the claimant. The learned Claims Tribunal considering the above facts, assessed the functional disability of the claimant to the extent of 60%. 6. Considering the reasons assigned by the learned Claims Tribunal, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the findings recorded in this regard. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti