1 2025:CGHC:28056 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1145 of 2019 1. Dildar Singh S/o Raghubir Singh Aged About 54 Years Caste Kanwar, R/o Village Batari, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ---(Claimant), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant/claimant versus 1. Jagatpal Singh S/o Laxman Singh Maravi R/o Village Nanbanka (Near Rachkamma), Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ---(Driver), 2. Ramesh Kumar Sharma S/o Gajanand Sharma R/o Village Rachkamma, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (CG) ---(Owner), 3. United India Insurance Company Limited Micro Office Shukla Complex In Front Of Punjab National Bank, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ---(Insurer) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 &2 : Mr. Saurav Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rantesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 26/6/2025 1. This miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) has been preferred on behalf of appellant-injured for enhancement of 2 compensation awarded by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba (CG) (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 20.8.2018 in Claim Case No.119/2015 by which a sum of Rs.1,67,196/- has been awarded as compensation for 20% permanent disability suffered by claimant in a motor vehicular accident. 2. Appellant-claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.10,20,000/- under various heads, pleading that on 26.12.2014 at about 7-8 p.m. while he along with his friends was going to village Jendra from village Chhira on motorcycle, on the way pick-up bearing registration number CG12-S- 3231, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by non-applicant No.1-driver, dashed him and caused accident. Claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries on above knee of left leg. At the time of accident, claimant was 54 years, working as Labourer and earning Rs.4,500/- per month. 3. Application filed by claimant-injured was resisted by non- applicants Nos.1 to 3, i.e. the owner-insured and the insurer on the grounds taken in the respective replies. Learned Claims Tribunal after analyzing the evidence led by the respective parties, allowed the application of claimant in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.1,67,193/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till 3 its realization. 4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal ought to have taken the monthly income of appellant at Rs.7930/- per month, which was minimum wages admissible and prescribed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 to an unskilled labour on the date of accident. He submits that as per disability certificate (Ex.P-45) issued by the doctor, appellant suffered 22% permanent disability, however, considering that disability certificate was issued with respect to right leg only whereas appellant suffered fracture over lower third part of left leg, malunion, stiffness in left ankle joint and shortening of leg by one centimeter, the Claims Tribunal assessed permanent disability with respect to whole body at 8.80% only. He submits that even if the finding of the Claims Tribunal is to be taken into consideration, appellant suffered loss of earning capacity of about 9%, the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation for loss of earning capacity. He next contended that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of income during laid-down period. Compensation of Rs.20,000/- is only awarded for pains and sufferings but nothing has been awarded for attendant, special diet, conveyance etc. Hence, he prays that the amount of compensation be enhanced suitably. 4 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents oppose the submissions of learned counsel for appellant and submit that the Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation which does not call for any interference. Disability certificate produced by appellant mentions percentage of disability as 22, but the Claims Tribunal considering the evidence of the doctor (PW-3) has rightly recorded that disability for the whole body is 8.80% and accordingly, the compensation for loss of income has been computed considering the income of appellant as Rs.4,500/- per month. It is also contended that the Claims Tribunal has considered the medical bills and awarded the entire amount claimed and proved. They submit that sufficient amount has been awarded under other heads. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record of claim case including impugned award. 7. So far as assessment of income of appellant is concerned, from the contents of claim application and evidence of appellant it can be seen that the appellant himself has stated that at the time of accident, he was earning Rs.4,500/- per month. The Claims Tribunal accepted the pleading and evidence of claimant and fixed his income as Rs.4,500/- per month. When the claimant himself pleaded the income which has been accepted, now he cannot be allowed to raise 5 grievance that the income assessed by the Claims Tribunal is on lower side. There is, thus, no case is made out for enhancement of income of appellant. However, perusal of impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal has not added to the assessed income of appellant towards future prospects. In case of Sidram vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that future prospects can be awarded in cases of permanent disability. Hence, looking to the age of appellant i.e. 54 years, in terms of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the appellant is entitled for addition of 10% of his assessed income towards future prospects. It is ordered accordingly. 8. So far as the submission of learned counsel for appellant with respect to assessment of loss of earning capacity to the tune of 8.80% is concerned, perusal of record would show that appellant has produced discharge summary report of New Korba Hospital, Korba and in discharge summary, final diagnosis noted is “FUC of operated Comp Grade 3B# T/F Left”. Appellant has also submitted disability certificate as Ex.P-45 in which the diagnosis is “malunion, left leg lower third fracture, stiffness of left ankle joint, shortening of leg by one centimeter’. Disability certificate reveals that appellant suffered 6 disability to the extent of 22% in relation to his left lower leg of the body. 9. In case of Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & another, reported in (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 343, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus:- “9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100%. 10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future 7 earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation.” 10. Percentage of disability mentioned for a specific part of the body cannot be same for the whole body, it is to be assumed based on the nature of occupation in which claimant-injured is engaged. In case at hand, as per pleadings made in claim application, appellant-claimant was working as agriculture labourer. The doctor (AW-3) has not stated in his evidence that assessment of disability is in respect of leg in which appellant suffered injury will also be for the whole body. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal has not committed 8 any error in assessing permanent disability for whole body as 8.8%. It is hereby affirmed. 11. Looking to the age of appellant i.e. 54 years, nature of injuries sustained i.e. fracture of lower third part of left leg as also of tibia fibula bone and period of treatment undergone by him i.e. from 28.1.2015 to 30.1.2015, it can safely be presumed that he must have taken complete rest atleast for a period of two months and during this period he might not have worked. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for compensation under the head of “loss of income for a period of two months”. It is ordered accordingly. 12. Appellant-claimant produced medical bills amounting to Rs.1,34,425/- and the Claims Tribunal allowed a sum of Rs.1,04,425/- by recording that the amount mentioned in bills Ex.P-10, Ex.P-11, Ex.P-13 and Ex.P-28 has been adjusted in original bill Ex.P-15. Hence, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head 'medical expenses' and same has been awarded based on the documentary proof. 13. The amount awarded under the head ‘pain and sufferings’ commensurate to the nature of injuries so suffered by appellant and therefore the same is hereby maintained. However, the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards special diet, conveyance and attendant. It is common 9 knowledge that in personal injury cases expenses are incurred on special diet, conveyance and attendant. Looking to the nature of the injuries suffered by appellant, the fact that appellant is resident of village Batari and he took treatment in Korba, he must have taken help of some attendant in to and fro journey during period of treatment and he must have also taken special diet for speedy recovery. Hence, I find it appropriate to award an amount of Rs.8,000/- towards special diet, Rs.5,000/- towards conveyance expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards attendant. It is ordered accordingly. 14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proposes to recompute the amount of compensation payable to the appellant. 15.Accordingly, income of appellant is taken as Rs.4,500/- per month, as pleaded by claimant and assessed by the Claims Tribunal, and after adding 40% towards future prospects, monthly income of appellant comes to Rs.6300/- and annual income would be Rs.75,600/-. Applying multiplier of 9, as applied by Claims Tribunal, total income of appellant comes to Rs.6,80,400/-. As the appellant suffered 8.80% loss of earning capacity, therefore, loss of future earning capacity occasioned to appellant would be Rs.59,875/- (8.80% of 680400). Besides this, appellant is entitled for Rs.12,600/- (6300x2) for loss of income during laid-down period of two 10 months, Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.8,000/- for special diet; Rs.5,000/- for attendant; Rs.5,000/- towards conveyance expenses and Rs.1,04,425/- towards medical expenses. Thus, the appellant is now entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,14,900/- in place of Rs.1,67,193/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. This amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. 16. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount already paid to appellant as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above. 17.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/- SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI