1 / 5 2025:CGHC:29051 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 882 of 2020 • Guddu Kumar @ Dhirendra Kumar Singh S/o Sakal Dev Singh Aged About 35 Years Permanent R/o Village Suhi, Post Office Malhara, Police Station Dev, District Aurangabad Bihar. At Present R/o Pandari , Police Station Pandari , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant- Applicant/Claimant versus 1. Sanjay Yadav S/o Rampravesh Yadav R/o Vidhut Nagar, Tifra, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Truck Bearing No. C.G. 10-C - 5461) 2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through In Charge Officer, Bajaj Allianz Gernerl Insurance Co. Ltd. Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Pandari , Raipur , Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Truck Bearing No. C.G. 10-C - 5461) --- Respondents/ Non-applicants ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate with Mr. Satyendra Shrivas, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Priya Kaiwart, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 30/06/2025 1. Appellant-claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the award dated 08.03.2019 passed by Learned Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 770/15, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 5 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 96,305/- as compensation in motor accidental injury case. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 13.06.2014 at about 5.30 pm, near village Lejwapara, police station Balrampur, district-Balrampur area, Deepak Kumar Yadav/driver of truck no. CG-10-C/5461 (henceforth called as “offending truck”) dashed the bus no. JH-01-AS-2433 from the front, as a result of which both the bus driver and the truck driver died on the spot and the bus conductor/applicant was seriously injured. He was admitted to Mekahara Hospital for treatment. Thereafter, he was admitted to district hospital, Gaya, Bihar. The report of the above accident was lodged in police station Balrampur (C.G.) based on which Crime No. 88/14 was registered for alleged offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Appellant/applicant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 20,25,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident he was about 35 years of age, was a healthy and able bodied person. He is sole bread earner in the family. Before accident he was working as Conductor in bus, from which he was earning ₹ 10,000/- per month to support himself and his family. 4. Respondent No. 1 / Non-applicant No. 1 -owner of the offending truck did not submit reply to the claim proceedings and he was proceeded ex parte. 5. Respondent No. 2/ Non-applicant No. 2/ Insurance Company filed its reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made therein, the applicant/ appellant did not suffered disability on the basis of the injury mentioned therein. The registered owner and insurer of the vehicle bus no. JH-01-AS-2433 involved in the accident, have not been made parties, and therefore the case is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that the vehicle 3 / 5 bus was being running without valid fitness certificate and permit. There was contributory negligence of the bus driver. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that applicant Guddu Kumar suffered grievous injuries in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending truck by its driver-Deepak Kumar Yadav. Breach of conditions of insurance policy and contributory negligence as also non- joinder of parties was not found to be proved, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 96,305/- as total compensation with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application. 7. Learned counsel for appellant-claimant would submit that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre sum of compensation. He contended that the income of deceased has been assessed on lower side overlooking the date of accident and nature of occupation as pleaded and stated by the claimant. Appellant suffered fracture injury over his right leg, there was commuted fracture of shaft femur upper third. Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation towards the grievous injury and prays for suitable enhancement of amount of compensation. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2/ Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that the Claims Tribunal in the facts of the case has awarded just compensation which does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. 10. Sofar as the submission made by learned counsel for appellant with regard to assessment of income of appellant on the date of accident is concerned, to prove the fact of income, appellant examined himself as AW-1, in his statement he stated that he was working as a conductor in the bus of 4 / 5 Mahendra Travels and was getting salary of ₹ 12,000/- per month for which he has produced a certificate in this regard. In cross-examination he fairly admitted that he had gone to the bus owner to get a certificate of income for himself after the accident. It is also admitted that he has not produced any document/ certificate or salary slip with regard to income prior to the date of accident. He also admitted that at the time of accident as well as at present, he was having no licence of being a conductor in the bus. The applicant's statement that his earning was ₹ 12,000 per month from the work of conductor, is not found to be proved. Therefore, learned Claims Tribunal keeping in mind the price index, cost of living, cost of inflation rate, has taken income of appellant as ₹ 6,000 per month on notional basis. From perusal of record, it is appearing that the appellant met with an accident on 13.06.2014 about 05:30 p.m. For assessing the income on notional basis, the Court can take help of minimum wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 11. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the income of appellant as assessed by the Claims Tribunal as ₹ 6,000/- per month on notional basis looking to the date of accident and the wages fixed by the competent authority during that period for an unskilled labourer, appears to be on lower side. Appellant was a Conductor on passenger inter-state bus and therefore I find it appropriate to assess income of appellant as ₹ 7,000/- per month ie., ₹ 84,000/- per annum. It is ordered accordingly. 12. Further perusal of impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal fell into error to award compensation towards grievous injuries suffered by the appellant in the facts of the case. As the appellant suffered commuted fracture of shaft femur upper third and had taken treatment as in-patient from 16.06.2014 to 14.07.2014, I find it appropriate to award ₹ 20,000/- towards grievous injuries. 5 / 5 13. The amount of compensation of ₹ 46,305 towards medical expenses, ₹ 10,000/- towards mental pain and suffering, ₹ 10,000/- towards special diet and conveyance expenses appears to be correct and it is affirmed. Compensation towards loss of earning for five-months is calculated as ₹ 35,000/- (₹ 7000x5). Looking to the nature of injury, period of treatment, appellant might have needed help of attendant for his day to day needs, therefore, I find it appropriate to award ₹ 6,000/- towards attendant cost. 14. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellant-claimant requires recomputation, which is as under. Particulars Compensation Medical Expenses (affirmed) ₹ 46,305/- Loss of earning during laid down period ₹ 35,000/- Mental Pain and Suffering (affirmed) ₹ 10,000/- Special Diet and Conveyance (affirmed) ₹ 10,000/- Towards grievous injuries ₹ 20,000/- Attendant cost ₹ 6,000/- Total ₹ 1,27,305/- 15. Now the appellant/claimant shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 1,27,305/- instead of ₹ 96,305/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount paid to the appellants-claimants pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. Other conditions imposed by the Claims Tribunal in the impugned award shall remain intact. 16. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn