-1- 2025:CGHC:19867 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1000 of 2020 Suresh Kumar Jodh S/o Janglu Jodh Aged About 53 Years R/o Village - Tulsipur, Ward No. 18, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Santosh Kumar Verma S/o Mahavir Verma Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Mudiya Mohara, Tehsil - Dongargarh, Police Station - Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Truck Bearing S. No. C.G. 08 Y 8032) 2 - Sarabjit Singh Bhatia, S/o T.S. Bhatia, R/o Village - Kalkapara Bhavan No. 131, Ward No. 09, Tehsil - Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Truck Bearing S. No. C.G. 08 Y 8032) 3 - Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Its Branch Manager Branch Office, L.I.C. Nigam Office Near Railway Station, Tehsil And District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company Of The Truck Bearing S. No. C.G. 08 Y 8032), ... Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Suyash Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate For Resp. No.1 & 2 : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate For Resp. No.3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.05.08 10:50:53 +0530 -2- 01/05/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally. 2. This is the claimant’s appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (CG) vide award dated 07.02.2020 passed in Claim Case No.155 of 2018. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that claimants/appellants filed an application under Sections 166 of the Act of 1988 pleading therein that on 07.08.2018, applicant went to Revadih on a motorcycle with his friend Dinesh for some personal work and while returning from there at about 08:00 pm, on GE Road near Raj Imperial Hotel, non-applicant No.1 driving a truck bearing registration number CG 08 Y 8032 rashly and negligently, dashed against the motorcycle and caused an accident. In the accident, applicant sustained grievous injuries and his leg got severed near the knee. He was immediately taken to the District Hospital. After initial treatment at District Hospital Rajnandgaon, seeing his critical condition, he was referred to Chandulal Chandrakar Hospital Bhilai on the same day where applicant remained admitted from 07.08.2018 to 26.08.2018 and his amputated leg was treated. It was stated in the claim application that before the accident, applicant was a healthy person, working on the post of Peon under the Labour Department and was receiving salary of Rs.24,601/- per month. His basic salary is -3- Rs. 27,967/-. The applicant is unable to go to his duty due to one leg being amputated from the knee and even after curing of injury, he will not be able to walk without crutches and will not be able to run around, his efficiency will decrease due to which his promotion will be affected and he will also not be able to drive the vehicle. He prayed for total compensation of Rs. 23,65,000/- to be awarded under different heads. 4. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 have jointly submitted a written statement denying the pleadings made in the claim application and have alleged that the applicant himself was driving his motorcycle at high speed and the accident caused due to applicant's negligence. It was pleaded that if the Court finds that the applicant is entitled to get any kind of compensation due to the alleged accident, then the liability of paying the compensation amount lies with non-applicant No.3/insurance company. 5. Non-applicant No.3/Insurance company has also submitted its written statement denying all the pleadings made in the claim application and it was further stated that on the date of the accident applicant did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive a motorcycle. Similarly, on the date of the incident, non-applicant No.1 also did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle involved in the accident. Applicant was also at fault in the said accident. At the time of accident, the vehicle owner was using the said offending vehicle in violation of the condition of insurance policy. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to satisfy the award. -4- 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non- applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which applicant/claimant suffered grievous injuries which resulted in his permanent disability (amputation of left leg). Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found proved, learned Claims Tribunal held non- applicant No.3/Insurance Company liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant and calculating the loss suffered by the claimant under different heads, awarded total compensation of of Rs.1,55,000/ -. 7. Assailing legality and correctness of the impugned award, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit that while granting compensation, learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount of compensation under the head ‘loss of income’. He submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards medical expenses incurred by the applicant during his treatment overlooking the fact that the applicant has remained admitted in hospital from 07.08.2018 to 26.08.2018 and thereafter from 01.09.2018 to 12.09.2018 and incurred huge expenses towards his treatment. He further submits that as the applicant/claimant has lost his left leg from below the knee and completely dependent on others for his day-to-day activities and he has to live with the permanent disability (amputation of left leg) for whole of his life, therefore, amount of compensation under the head -5- ‘loss of amenities of life’ ought to have been awarded by the Tribunal. He prays for enhancement of the amount of compensation suitably. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents oppose the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the amount of compensation awarded is just and proper in the facts of the case and it does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. 10. In this case, it is undisputed that non-applicant No.1 is the driver of the offending vehicle, non-applicant No.2 is the owner and non- applicant No.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle- truck. 11. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the applicant with respect to not awarding any amount of compensation under ‘loss of income’ is concerned, learned Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that the claimant/applicant is a government servant and he has not suffered any loss of income for the disability he suffered due to amputation of left leg from below knee. In para-4 of his cross-examination, claimant/applicant Suresh Jodh (AW1) has admitted the fact that he is still working in his office and the income which he was getting prior to date of accident is the same income which he is receiving after accident. In the aforementioned fact of the case, learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under the head ‘loss of income’ which cannot be said to be erroneous in view of evidence of claimant (AW1). 12. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the -6- applicant/claimant that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount of compensation towards medical expenses is concerned, claimant/applicant (AW1) in his further cross examination has admitted that he has not submitted any bills towards medical expenses but for calculation of approximate expenditure he made for his treatment. In the aforementioned fact of the case, where as per applicant’s own evidence he has not submitted medical bills, learned Claims Tribunal justified in not awarding any amount of compensation towards medical expenses in absence of medical bills. 13. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the applicant/claimant with regard to not granting any amount under the head ‘attendant charges’ is concerned, from the documents available on record it is appearing that applicant remained admitted in the hospital for his treatment from 07.08.2018 till 26.08.2018 and thereafter from 01.09.2018 till 12.09.2018. Looking to the nature of injury suffered during above period, the appellant might have been taken care by some attendant and even after the discharge from the hospital he might have needed attended for some more time. Therefore, considering the nature of injury and the period of treatment, I find it appropriate to award compensation towards attendant for a period of 3 months. The amount of compensation towards attendant would be Rs.24,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. 14. The appellant is aged 52 years. Undisputedly he suffered amputation of his left leg below the knee. He has to live his remaining life ahead with the disability he suffered. Definitely he -7- cannot enjoy his marital and social life like an ordinary man. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under head of ‘loss of amenities of life’ and, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, looking to the status of the applicant that he is a Govt. servant and employed as a Peon and further considering that he will face difficulty in his old age also, I find it appropriate to award Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities in life. It is ordered accordingly. 15. Perusal of the award would show that learned Claims Tribunal taking note of the disability to the extent fo 50% suffered by the applicant, awarded an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- under the the head “pain & agony and reduction in future life expectancy, Rs.10,000/- under the head ‘transportation’ and Rs.20,000/- for ‘special diet’, which does not call for any interference. 16. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I find it appropriate to re- compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. Reduction in future life expectancy : Rs. 1,25,000 2. Transportation/conveyance expenses Rs. 10,000 3. Special Diet : Rs. 20,000 4. Attendant charges : Rs. 24,000 5. Loss of amenities of life : Rs. 50,000 Total compensation : Rs. 2,29,000/- 17. Now the appellant/claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs.2,29,000/- instead of Rs.1,55,000/- as awarded by the Claims -8- Tribunal. 18. Aforementioned total amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Other conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 19. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein above. Sd/--/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen