1 2025:CGHC:46254 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 866 of 2024 1 - Girish Kumar S/o Sohan Lal, Aged About 23 Years Caste-Halba, R/o Village-Borgaon, Tahsil Doundi, District Balod (C.G.) ---(Claimant) ... Appellant versus 1 - Vishwajeet Roy S/o Adheer Ram, Aged About 42 Years Caste- Namoshudra, R/o Village Ward No. 01, P.V. No. 40, Police Station And Tahsil- Pakhanjur, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ----(Non-Applicants) 2 - Vishwas Mandal S/o Vimal Mandal, Caste-Namoshudra, R/o Subhash Goldar, Dharam Nagar Pachpedi Naka Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) 3 - United India Insurance Company Ltd., Bus Stand Road Rajnandgaon, Branch Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) --------(Non-Applicants) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Though Served. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. P. K. Tulsyan on behalf of Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 10/09/2025 Heard on IA No. 01 – application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 2 3. With the consent of the parties, heard finally. 4. Assailing the legality, correctness and judicial propriety of the award dated 04.09.2023 passed in Claim Case No. 25/2022 by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, District Balod, CG, this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) has been filed by the appellant/claimant. 5. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs. 38,28,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 9,13,551/- in favour of the appellant/claimant on account of the injuries and permanent disablement sustain by him in an accident that occurred on 26.06.2021 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. CG 04 LY 3461 by respondent No. 1 / driver, owned by respondent No. 2 / owner and insured with the respondent No. 3 / insurance company. 6. As per pleadings of the claim application filed under Section 166 of MV Act, the appellant/claimant was aged about 23 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month as an agricultural labour. As a result of the said accident, his left leg has been amputed below knee resulting into loss of his earning capacity and he remained in hospitalization for a considerable period, therefore, the above stated compensation was claimed. 7. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 / driver and owner filed its written statement and denied the averments of the claim application and also stated that in case of any compensation is awarded the liability to pay the same is on the respondent No. 3 / insurance company. 8. The respondent No. 3 / insurance company also in usual course 3 and denied the averments of the claim application and pleaded that excessive compensation is claimed there is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy on account of valid and effective driving license, permit and fitness. 9. The learned Tribunal has framed the issues and decided the same in favour of the appellant/claimant and held that the appellant/claimant sustained 50% permanent disablement and loss of income and thereby awarded the above stated compensation. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the amount of compensation is on the lower side which require suitable enhancement. He further submits that a disability certificate (Ex.P- 67) to the tune of 60% has been filed but the tribunal has assessed 50% which require to be set aside. Apart from this, he submits that the compensation and all other heads is require suitable enhancement by this Court. 11. Ms. Kotecha and Mr. Tulsyan, learned counsel for the respective respondents support the impugned award and submits that the just compensation has been awarded and the assessment of 50% permanent disability is correct and compensation and all other admissible is also reasonably awarded which does not require any interference by this Court. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 13. There is no dispute to the fact that the left leg of the appellant/claimant was amputed below knee and there is a disability certificate available on record to the tune of 60%. From the evidence gathered it is quite vivid that the appellant was agricultural labour. 4 The finding is with regard to as the leg was amputed naturally the appellant could not be able to perform his job, therefore, the finding of 50% holding the 50% disability appears to be not based on proper appreciation therefore, this finding is set aside and it is held that the appellant is disabled to loss of earning capacity to the tune of 60% as disability certificate Ex. P-67. 14. The Tribunal on assessment of the evidence available on record in paragraph 24 awarded the compensation in the following manner:- Medical treatment Rs. 48,551/-; Nutritional Diet Rs. 30,000/-; Mental and physical agony Rs. 25,000/- and Loss of income future earning Rs. 8,10,000/-, hence total awarded compensation of Rs. 9,13,551/-. 15. Though in the claim application the appellant has pleaded that he was earning Rs. 8,000/- but this Court can award more compensation than claimed to make the compensation just in light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Ors. reported in (2003) 2 SCC 274, this Court looking to the date of accident; nature of job and minimum wages consider is to be Rs. 9,000/- per month. Thus taking the income of the appellant/claimant and his loss of earning capacity to 60%, this Court is inclined to reassessed the compensation in the following manner:- S. No. Description Amount 1. Monthly income 9,000/- 2. 40% Future prospect 3600/- 3. Total Monthly Income (9000+3600) 12600/- 4. Total Yearly Income (12600x12) 1,51,200/- 5. Claimant 60% disablement 90,720/- 6. Loss of income 90720X18 16,32,960/- 7. Loss of income during treatment 50,000/- 5 8. Attendant and Nutritional died 30,000/- 9. Mental and Physical agony 50,000/- 10. For loss of amenities and enjoyment of life 25,000/- Total compensation 17,87,960/- 16. Since learned Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs. 9,13,551/-, the enhanced amount which he now is entitled to get comes to Rs. 8,74,409/-. Order accordingly. 17. The amount of compensation shall be paid by the insurance company / respondent No. 3 within a period of 60 days with 6% interest, from the date of appeal on 16.04.2024. 18. On such deposit being made, out of the amount worked out by way of enhancement, let 75% thereof be invested in some nationalized bank for a period of two years and the remainder be paid to appellant / claimant through bank transaction. 19. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part with the modification as indicated above. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan