1 2025:CGHC:36273 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 686 of 2019 1 - Ku. Aneshwari Netam D/o Motiram Netam Aged About 19 Years R/o Village- Chote Urla, Police Station- Abhanpur, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1 - Niyaj Khan S/o Kutubudeen Aged About 60 Years R/o Cheema Local Carrier, Mahasamund, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 493445..........Driver Of Truck Trailer C.G.13 L 0905., 2 - M/s Cheema Local Carrier And Constructions Through Managing Director, R/o Near Bus Statnd, Mahasamund, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 493445......Owner Of Truck Trailer C.G. 13 L 0905. 3 - United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Issuing Branch Office, Shop No. 7, New Mandi Road, Mahasamund, Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Krishna Complex, Kachehri Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492001......Insurer Of Truck Trailer C.G.13 L 0905., --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No.1 and 2: Mr. Divya Nand Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ratan Pusty, Advocate BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.14 10:51:31 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 25/07/2025 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 Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District – Raipur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 17.12.2018 passed in Claim Case No.676/2016 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.8,78,600/- as compensation in an injury case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellant/claimant filed an application application U/s. 166 of the Act, 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.37,50,000/- on account of the injury suffered by her in the road accident. It was pleaded that on 17.06.2016 at around 7:00 PM, the appellant was engaged in construction work in an under- construction road, where appropriate information and warning signboards was placed on both sides indicating obstruction. At that time, non-applicant No.1, while driving the offending Truck Trailer bearing registration No. CG-13L-0905 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the appellant and other labourers working at the site, resulting in a serious accident. As a consequence of said accident, right leg of the appellant below knee was amputated and she also suffered serious injuries in her left thigh. She was immediately taken to the Government Health Center at Bagbahara and subsequently referred to V.Y. Hospital, Raipur. On the date of accident, appellant 19 years old able bodied unmarried girl, working as a labourer and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. On account of motor-accidental injuries, she is 3 now unable to perform her work in the manner as she was doing prior to accident and thus suffered loss of income. Claimant has also sought compensation under all other heads as are available to her like medical expenses, special diet, future medical expenses, pain and sufferings etc. 3. Non-applicant Nos.1 & 2/driver and owner of offending vehicle, submitted reply and resisted the claim. It was further pleaded that claim application was filed on false and fabricated grounds exaggerating the amount of compensation. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, non-applicant No.1 was having valid and effective driving license and offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3. 4. Non-applicant No.3-Insurer of offending vehicle filed its reply denying the averments made therein. It was pleaded that on the date of accident, non-applicant No.1 was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle and the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy without any fitness and permit. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.8,78,600/- and fastened liability upon non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company to satisfy the amount of compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/injured submits that the learned Claims Tribunal committed a grave error in awarding a meager amount 4 of compensation, failing to adequately consider the severity and nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant as well as the prolonged period of medical treatment undergone. The income of the appellant/injured has been assessed on lower side. The learned Claims Tribunal has also failed to award proper and suitable compensation on other heads. He prays for suitable enhancement of compensation. 7. Learned counsel for the respective respondents opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that learned Claims Tribunal awarded just compensation on all heads for which the claimant is entitled for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused record of the claim case. 9. Perusal of the record would show that appellant suffered crush injuries over her right leg below knee, her ankle was detached, however, during treatment an attempt was made to refix the ankle, however, even after long treatment it was not properly joined. Appellant underwent multiple surgery and even the skin grafting was done, but her leg was disfigured and she suffered permanent disability. Disability certificate is filed as Ex.P-43, wherein the doctor examined her assessed that she suffered 45% permanent disability. Claimant has also examined treating doctor Punendu Saxena as (A.W-1), who in his evidence proved the crush injuries over her right let, her leg was operated, plastic surgery was also done and he stated that even after treatment, her leg was disfigured and she will face problems in doing heavy work. Claimant in her evidence stated that she was 5 continuously admitted in the hospital for about 40 days during which period, twice her leg was operated, skin grafting was done, and stated that prior to the accident she was working as labourer and earning Rs.5,000/- per month and after the accident she is not able to do the work and earn her livelihood because of the motor accidental injuries. 10. The learned Claims Tribunal, while computing the compensation for loss of income, has taken the appellant's monthly income as ₹5,000, as pleaded and stated by the claimant/appellant and added 40% towards future prospects to the assessed income. Furthermore, for the purpose of calculating the actual loss of income, the Tribunal has considered the functional disability at 40%, as against the certified disability of 45% and assessed loss of income of Rs.6,04,800/-, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is just and proper, which does not call for any interference. 11. So far as the submission of learned counsel for appellant that Claims Tribunal has not awarded sufficient amount under other head is concerned, perusal of the award would show that learned Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.23,000/- towards attendant in the hospital. Claimant/injured took treatment as inpatient from 17.06.2016 to 28.07.2016 at VY Hospital, Raipur. Thereafter, she was again admitted in the same hospital and took treatment as inpatient from 12.09.2016 to 15.09.2016. Discharge summary is filed as Annexure P- 8. Looking to the nature of injuries suffered by claimant/injured, she may not be able to take care of herself for about 5 months, therefore, I find it appropriate to award Rs.30,000/- towards attendant for five months assessing the expenditure towards attendant as Rs.6,000/- 6 per month as per the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and prevailing on the date of accident. So far as the compensation awarded under the head of special diet, conveyance and miscellaneous is concerned, the claimant was resident of village Urla, Police Station Abhanpur, District - Raipur and she took treatment at V.Y. Hospital, Raipur, therefore, I find it appropriate to award Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance expenses and considering the period of treatment nature of injuries I find it appropriate to award Rs.15,000/- towards special diet. During the period of treatment many of the bills towards the medical expenses or other could not have been kept protected by the attendant or the claimant, therefore, I find it appropriate to award Rs.10,000/- towards miscellaneous expenses. The award of Rs.50,000/- towards mental pain and suffering appears to be just and proper, however, looking to the nature of injuries and claimant being the unmarried lady and will face difficulty in her future life and therefore, I find it appropriate to award Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities in life and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects. It is ordered accordingly. Taking into consideration the nature of injuries suffered I find it appropriate to enhance the amount of compensation under the head of future medical expenses of Rs.25,000/- to Rs.70,000/-. The compensation of Rs.30,000/- awarded for loss of earning during laid down period is just and proper, which does not call for any interference. Learned counsel for the appellant could not able to point out that medical bills, which is placed on record admissible in evidence was not considered and awarded, therefore, the amount of compensation under the head of medical expenses does not call for any interference. 7 12. Claims Tribunal assessing income of claimant as Rs.5,000/- per month, adding 40% towards future prospects, applying multiplier of 18 assessed loss of 40% earning as Rs.6,04,800/-, which is correctly calculated. 13. On the basis of above, compensation awarded needs recomputation, which is as under :- SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. For loss of income : 6,04,800.00 2. For medical expenses : 1,20,800.00 3. For attendant : 30,000.00 4. For special diet : 15,000.00 5. Conveyance expenses 10,000.00 6. Miscellaneous expenses : 10,000.00 7. For pain and suffering : 50,000.00 8. Loss of amenities in life : 50,000.00 9. Loss of marriage prospects : 50,000.00 10. For future medical expenses : 70,000.00 11. For loss of income during laid down period : 30,000.00 Grand Total : 10,40,600.00 14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.10,40,600.00. Any amount paid to the appellants as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram