1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MAC No. 754 of 2016 Bharat Bhushan Singh S/o Shri Punya Dev Singh, aged about 30 years R/o Village: Jagrit Nagar, Birgaon Thana: Urla, District: Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1. Abhay Raj Tripathi S/o Manshukh Lal Tripathi, R/o House No. 235 Aajad Chowk, Birgaon Thana-Urla Tahsil and District: Raipur Chhattisgarh (Driver) 2. Ramakant Mahapatra, S/o Vishanu Dutt Mahapatra, R/o Khamtarai, Raipur Chhattisgarh (Owner) 3. Royal Sunderam Alliance General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Address Chawala Complex, Meja Nine Floor, Sai Nagar, Devendra Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondents : None, though served. SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.01.31 16:32:37 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 30.01.2025 1. This appeal is by the claimant/injured against the award dated 30.01.2016 passed by 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 192/2013 awarding total compensation of Rs. 50,270/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till realization, while fastening liability on the respondents, jointly and severally. 2. As per claim petition filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act, on 29.11.2011, the respondent No. 1 while driving the offending vehicle Auto bearing registration No. CG 04 T 8705, rashly and negligently, turned the vehicle turtle, due to which, the appellant, who was traveling as passenger in the said vehicle, fell down and sustained grievous injury on his right hand and other parts of the body. At the time of accident, offending vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2 and duly insured with respondent No. 3/Insurance company. 3. On claim petition being filed by the claimant for compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,50,000/-, the Tribunal considering the evidence led by both the parties passed an award while making making the insurance company liable for payment of compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that on account of accident, the claimant sustained fracture on his right hand ulna bone 3 and also sustained injuries over his other parts of the body. He further submits that the claimant-appellant sustained 74% permanent physical impairment in relation to right upper limb as shown in Ex.P/88 which was issued by the medical board, however, the Tribunal has erred in not considering the said disability certificate, which needs to be considered looking to the nature and job of the claimant as Supervisor in a Steel Company. He further submits that the amount awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal towards Pain and Suffering, Loss of Amenities and other heads is also on lower side which needs to be enhanced suitably. He also submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects, whereas the Tribunal ought to have awarded the amount under this head. Therefore, the amount of compensation needs to be reassessed suitably. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the award impugned including the record of the Tribunal. 6. As regards the disability, as per the statement of AW-1 claimant, medical documents, police statements and final report vide Ex. P-1 to P-88 submitted by the claimant, it is clear that when he was traveling in the offending vehicle Auto as a passenger on 29.11.2011, at that time, one unknown vehicle dashed the auto in which the applicant/claimant was traveling, due to which, the auto turned turtle and the claimant sustained grievous injuries over his right hand and ulna bone of right hand was also fractured. He further stated that he was admitted in the hospital from 29.11.2011 to 07.12.2011 and 27.02.2012 to 05.03.2012 in the Saikripa Hospital and Ambedkar 4 Hospital Raipur. 7. AW-2 Dr. P.K. Gupta, stated that he has medically examined the claimant/appellant and found that due to the accident the appellant/claimant sustained compound fracture in the radius ulna bone of his right upper limb, due to which he was operated. In his cross-examination, he admitted that Disability Certificate has not been issued on the basis of examination of whole body, but has specifically stated that there was injury in his right upper limb part, hence it is related only to the right upper limb and not to the whole body, as specified in the Government Manual for disability assessment. 8. The learned Claims Tribunal despite considerable evidence on record did not take into the account the permanent disability as assessed by the medical board. The approach of the Tribunal in not considering the statement of the doctor is unsustainable in law, therefore, it would be appropriate to take into account the disability to the extent of 10% looking to the nature of Job and extent of injury. This apart, the amounts awarded under the heads of Pain and Suffering, Special Diet, Attendant and Transport by the Tribunal are on lower side. It is also to be noted here that the Tribunal did not award any amount under the head of Future Prospects and Loss of Amenities, which needs to be added in his compensation. 9. Now, I shall reassess the compensation taking into account the monthly income of the claimant-injured as Rs. 3,000/- per month and Rs. 36,000/- per annum. As held above, if 10% disability is deducted from total annual income, then a sum of Rs. 3,600/- would come 5 towards amount under the disability. Looking to the age of the injured as 30 years at the time of incident, the applicable multiplier would be 17 in view of principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. If the annual income of Rs. 3,600/- is multiplied by 17 then the Total Loss of Annual Income would come to Rs. 61,200/-. This apart, the injured appellant is also entitled to future prospects and as per decision of Pranay Sethi (supra) the applicable percentage would be 40% and if 40% is added to the Total Loss of Annual Income then a sum of Rs. 24,480/- would be worked out. Accordingly the appellant-claimant is entitled to Rs. 85,680/- towards total Loss of Income. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 19,270/- towards expenses incurred on treatment and for purchase of medicines, Rs. 10,000/- towards special diet, attendant and for transportation, which needs no modification by this Court. However, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,000/- for Loss of Income towards Pain and Suffering, which needs reassessment. Here it is pertinent to mention that he must have suffered Pain and Suffering and Loss of Amenities during treatment, therefore, under this head it would be appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 30,000/- which would meet the ends of justice. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant-claimant must have suffered Loss of Income for a period of 6 months, during period of treatment and hospitalization. Therefore, under this head I award a sum of Rs. 18,000/- for Loss of Income for a period of 6 months, which would finally meet the ends of justice. 6 10. In this way, the claimant is entitled to be awarded a sum of Rs. 1,62,950/- as total compensation in place of Rs. 50,270/-. 11. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 50,270/- after deducting the same from the above amount i.e. Rs. 1,62,950/-, the appellant herein is held entitled for an additional compensation of Rs. 1,12,680/- which shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the impugned award to the above extent. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Saurabh