1 2025:CGHC:18919 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 869 of 2018 1 - Akash Kumar Ahuja S/o Surendra Kumar Ahuja, Aged About 23 Years R/o Sadar Road, Arang, P. S. Arang, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) ... Appellant versus 1 - Krishna Yadav S/o Indrajeet Yadav, R/o Geedam Road, Naya Para, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. (Driver). 2 - Manju Singh S/o S/o Verendera Singh, R/o Santi Nagar, Sukma, Tehsil And District- Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. (Owner). 3 - The Chola Mandalam, M. S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Office Address- Branch Office, Opposite Bus Stand, L.I.C. Road, Pandri, Raipur, District- And Tehsil Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer). ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, Adv. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sangeet Ku. Kushwaha, Adv. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board ( 25 . 04 .202 5 ) 1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 28.02.2018 passed by 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 567/2015 whereby a Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.04.28 10:14:28 +0530 2 compensation of Rs. 5,89,464/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum has been awarded in favour of the appellant/claimant for his irreparable loss. 2. The averment in the claim petition, in brief, was that, on 11.03.2015 at about 6:00 pm, the appellant was coming from Aarang to Raipur on his motorcycle, at that time, near Telibandha Signal, the driver/respondent No.1 of the offending vehicle, Truck bearing registration No. UP-52-F-2856 driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle from back backside, due to which the appellant sustained grievous injuries. The matter was reported to the police, and a case was registered against the driver/respondent No.1 of the offending vehicle. In the claim application, it was stated that on the date of the accident, the appellant was about 23 years old and was earning Rs. 20,000/- from his business and due to the permanent disability in the said accident, the appellant suffered irreparable loss. Therefore, he claimed a total compensation of Rs. 47,00,000/- by filing a claim application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. 3. In the award passed by the Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced thereof, it was held that the appellant was admitted in the hospital for 24 days from 11.03.2015 to 03.04.2015 & 05/10/2015 to 07/10/2015 and underwent treatment for Urinary Bladder. A Cathedral was used for urine passage. A permanent disability certificate Ex.P- 3 54, to the extent of 20% has been produced by the appellant, but it is not from the medical board and is from a doctor, therefore, it is not proved that the appellant sustained permanent disability in the said accident, though he has suffered grievous injuries. Further, considering the statement of Dr. Ajay Kumar Prasar (AW-1), it is clear that the appellant is leading a normal life after treatment. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, the income of the deceased was taken as Rs. 4,500/- per month and considering the medical expenses incurred by the appellant in his treatment vide Ex.P-38 to Ex.P-40 and Ex.P-90 the total compensation has been awarded by learned Claims Tribunal in the following manner:- Sl. No. Heads Compensation 01 Towards Medical expenses Rs. 4,80,464/- 02 Towards transportation and attendant Rs. 20,000/- 03 Towards nutritious diet, milk etc. Rs. 10,000/- 04 Towards physical and mental agony Rs. 25,000/- 05 Towards loss of income Rs. 54,000/- Total Rs. 5,89,464/- 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the appellant sustained grievous injury due to the said accident, and his treatment was also ongoing. The claimant/appellant was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month, but the tribunal only assessed to Rs. 4500/- per month, which is a lesser amount than the notional income of Rs. 6,000/- per month. He further submits that the appellant has produced a permanent disability certificate Ex.P- 4 54, to the extent of 20%, but the tribunal has not considered the loss of income as per the disability certificate. He also submits that the fertility of the appellant has been affected due to the said accident, but no compensation has been awarded in this regard. Hence, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 argues that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. Therefore there is no need for any enhancement and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 7. From the perusal of the entire material available on record, particularly the statement of Dr. Ajay Kumar Parasar (AW-1), it is clear that the appellant is leading a normal life. The disability certificate Ex.P-54, produced by the appellant, is not from the medical board. So far as the matter of fertility or fecundity is concerned, there is neither any authentic test report nor the definite opinion of the doctor in this regard, hence, it is not found appropriate to give any compensation in this regard. 8. Looking to the material available on record and considering the fact that appellant was admitted in the hospital for 24 days during his operation, this Court is of the opinion that it is appropriate to award a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- toward medical expenses in treatment in future except the awarded compensation on above 5 heads by the claims tribunal and it is 5 also appropriate to enhance the awarded amount of Rs. 25,000/- by the claims Tribunal on the head of physical and mental agony to Rs. 50,000/-. 8. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 50,000/- is hereby enhanced/awarded by this Court. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 50,000/- in addition to what has already been awarded by the claims Tribunal as compensation. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and the rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 10. The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimant in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the Tribunal below. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants resides. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu