1 2025:CGHC:33725 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 790 of 2020 1 - Satyawati @ Satya Sonkar D/o Lalit Sonkar, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Ghughwa (Ka) Post Aunri, Police Station - Bhilai-3, Tahsil - Patan, District - Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Parasnath Satnami @ Shrawan S/o Ramchand Satnami, Aged About 37 Years R/o Mahamara, Abadipara, Police Station - Pulgaon, Tahsil And District - Durg Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Dhiraj Shrivastava S/o R. P. Shrivastava, Aged About 42 Years R/o Santoshi Darbar, Ganjpara, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - National Insurance Company Ltd., Through - Divisional Manager And Office Akashganga Parisar, Supela Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondent No. 3. : Ms. Pooja Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 17/07/2025 1. Appellant-claimant, who suffered injuries in a road accident, has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by learned 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short ‘the SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 21.1.2020 in Claim Case No.147/2016. 2. Claimant-appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.32,86,172/-under various heads on account of injuries sustained by him in a road accident caused by offending vehicle i.e. Truck bearing registration number CG04-CW-7165, driven in a rash and negligent manner by non-applicant No.1/ respondent No.1 herein. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, claimant was 34 years old, engaged in vegetable farming business and earning Rs.250/- per day. However, due to injuries sustained by her in the said accident, she became permanently disabled. 3. Non-applicant No.1 did not appear before the Claims Tribunal and as such, he was proceeded ex-parte. 4. Non-applicant No.2 filed reply to application pleading that accident occurred due to negligence of motorcycle driver on which injured was pillion. Accident did not occur from the offending vehicle. On the date of accident, non-applicant No.1 was driving offending vehicle slowly on correct side. It was further pleaded that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3, non-applicant No.1 was having valid and effective driving license and therefore, if any compensation is awarded to claimant, then non-applicant No.3 is liable to pay the same. 5. Non-applicant No.3 also filed its reply denying the averments made therein. It was further pleaded that injured claimant has not filed any document with respect to her age, occupation and income. She has 3 also not filed disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board, Durg. Accident occurred due to negligence of injured and as such, principle of contributory negligence attracts. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence adduced by respective parties, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by Non-Applicant No. 1, there was no element of contributory negligence or violation of conditions of insurance policy and accordingly, allowed the application in part and awarded total sum of Rs.5,42,200/- as compensation to claimant/appellant herein. 7. Learned counsel for claimant/appellant submits that looking to nature of injuries suffered by appellant and period of treatment, compensation assessed by the Claims Tribunal is disproportionate. He contended that appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 25% 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 further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side looking to the nature of injuries sustained by appellant and her period of treatment. Therefore, he prays that the amount of compensation be enhanced suitably. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents supporting the award passed by the Claims Tribunal submitted that, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused 4 record of claim case including impugned award. 10. Perusal of record would show that claimant filed an application seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.32,86,172/- on account of motor vehicular accident that took place on 10.6.2016, pleading that on the date of accident, she was earning Rs.250/- by selling vegetables and doing agriculture work but due to permanent disability suffered by her of 25% she is not able to work and earn like earlier. However, appellant-claimant failed to prove her occupation and income in accordance with law. Therefore, learned Claims Tribunal proceeded to assess his income on notional basis considering the inflation rate and wage rate prevalent for an unskilled worker. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the Claims Tribunal has not committed any mistake in assessing income of appellant as Rs.7000/- per month on notional and it is maintained. 11. As regards disability, claimant has submitted disability certificate (Ex.A- 55) issued by the District Medical Board, Durg in which it is mentioned that appellant suffered 25% disability in her right hand. Dr. R.K. Nayak (AW-4), who was one of the members of District Medical Board which has issued disability certificate in favour of appellant, has deposed that after examination of appellant, Board found that claimant suffered 25% disability in her right hand, which was not permanent in nature. This witness admitted that disability of appellant is only in respect of right hand not for her whole body. The Claims Tribunal considering the disability certificate and evidence of the doctor, assessed disability of appellant as 25%, which does not call for any interference and it is affirmed. 5 12. As regards the loss of income to appellant, there is no dispute that appellant sustained injuries in the accident that was occurred on 10.6.2016. As per Annexure P-13, appellant was admitted in JLN Hospital and Research Centre, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai on 10.6.2016 and discharged on 22.6.2016. He was diagnosed fracture of both bone forearm and dorsi fleixon, right inferior pubic ramus, upper end of ulna, shaft of ulna, lower shaft of radius, clavicular shaft and humerus shaft. As per Ex.P-20, which is receipt of payment issued by Shri Ram Hospital, appellant admitted there on 8.7.2016 and discharged on 14.7.2016, during this period her humerus interlock nailing was done. As per Discharge Summary of Shri Ram Hospital, Sunder Nagar, Raipur, appellant was admitted on 12.6.2018 where she was diagnosed united fracture (multiple injuries) over right upper limb. Procedure done was “implant removal”. 13. Learned Claims tribunal has computed loss of earning considering loss of income due to disability as 25% which cannot be said to be erroneous or on lower side, hence, it is affirmed. 14. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by appellant, period of hospitalization, as mentioned in discharge summary, I am of the view that the appellant must have taken bed-rest at least for a period of two months to regain normal position. Consequently, she must not have done her work at least for a period 45 to 60 days. Thus, considering the nature of occupation pleaded in claim application, I am of the view that the appellant could be awarded a sum of Rs.14,000/- (7000x2) towards loss of income during period of treatment. It is ordered accordingly. 15. As regards the award of medical expenses, the Claims Tribunal 6 considering the medical bills produced by claimant, which were on account of payment to the hospital towards treatment, medicines etc., awarded a total sum of Rs.1,82,200/-. Learned counsel for appellant failed to point out, 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. Looking to the nature of injuries i.e. united fractures (multiple injuries) and period of treatment, the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal towards pains and sufferings, special diet and conveyance is on lower and therefore, the same is hereby enhanced to Rs.50,000/- for pains and suffering, Rs.15,000/- for special diet and Rs.15,000/- for attendant. 17. The Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for loss of enjoyment and amenities in life. Permanent disability in right hand of appellant will definitely hamper her day-to-day activities and enjoyment in every walk of life and she has to face difficulty throughout his life. Hence, I deem it appropriate to award an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. It is ordered accordingly. 18. In view of above, claimant/appellant is now entitled for compensation as under;- HEADS : AMOUNT (In Rs.) Loss of earning capacity : 3,36,000=00 Loss of income during period of : 14,000=00 7 treatment. Medical expenses : 1,82,200=00 For pain and suffering : 50,000=00 For loss of amenities in life : 50,000=00 For special diet : 15,000=00 For conveyance : 15,000=00 For attendant : 10,000=00 Total: 6,72,200=00 19. Now, claimant/appellant is held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.6,72,200/- in place of Rs.5,42,200/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of application. Any amount disbursed to appellant pursuant to impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as awarded above. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 20. 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 roshan/-