Page No.1 2025:CGHC:15037 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 966 of 2020 1. Nandkumar Patre S/o Bhawarlal Patre Aged About 25 Years Permanent Address Village Mohbhatta, P.S. Bhatapara (Rural), District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh. Present Address Banjari Nagar Rawabhatha, P.S. Khamtarai, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1. Ibrahim Ali S/o Mehtab Ali R/o Magarpara, Marrimai Road, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G. -11 Ab-3207). 2. Naveen Kumar Chopda R/o House No. 97, F.C.I. Road, Vyapar Vihar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle No. CG-11-AB-3207). 3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager (Division No. 3), R.D.A. Building, Opposite Of Tehsil Office, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle No. C.G. -11 AB-3207). .. Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No.1 & 2 : None For Respondent No.3 : Mr. P. Dutta, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 28/03/2025 1. There is no dispute regarding the accident, the cause of accident as also liability to indemnify the insured owner of offending vehicle, the sole question involves in this appeal for Page No.2 consideration is whether or not the Claims Tribunal has awarded adequate compensation to the claimant. In such circumstance, issuance of notice to respondent Nos.1 & 2, who are driver and registered owner of offending vehicle respectively, is dispensed with, and with the consent of the parties, the appeal is being heard finally at the admission stage itself. 2. Appellant-claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal to the Court of learned 1st Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 1.2.2020 passed in Claim Case No.449/2018. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 16.4.2018 at about 7:00 p.m. near Millenium Dhaba, Simga, respondent No.1 by driving vehicle registration mark CG-11-AB-3207 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of appellant by driving his vehicle as a result, appellant suffered grievous injuries. He was admitted in Narayan Hospital, Raipur for treatment of his injuries where his right hand above elbow was amputated. Claimant/appellant herein filed application seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.69,45,000/- under various heads inter alia on the ground of loss of earning power due to permanent disability. 4. Non-applicant No.1 & 2 / respondents No.1 & 2 herein filed joint reply to application denying the averments made therein. Page No.3 It was pleaded that non-applicant No.1 has not caused any accident on the date in question. Offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3, there was no violation of any of the conditions of insurance policy and therefore, if any compensation is awarded to claimant then insurance company is liable to satisfy the same. 5. Non-applicant No.3- Insurance Company submitted its written statement denying the averments made in application. It was pleaded that appellant failed to prove his employment and income therefrom by adducing reliable and cogent piece of evidence. On the date of accident, driver of offending vehicle was not having valid license to drive offending vehicle and as the offending vehicle was being plied on road in violation of conditions of insurance policy, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. 6. The Claims Tribunal after appreciating the pleadings and evidence placed on record (oral and documentary both) by the respective parties has partly allowed claim application and awarded compensation Rs.25,49,361/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. The Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 and fastened liability upon respondent No.3 Insurance Company to satisfy the award. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellant submits that appellant has specifically pleaded that at the time of accident, he was engaged as driver of JCB Machine, earning Page No.4 Rs.15,000/- per month and in support thereof also examined Shyam Ratan Kosle (PW-3). However, the Claims Tribunal disbelieved the version of appellant and his witness, assessed his income at Rs.8,000/- on notional basis. He further submits that the Claims Tribunal held that appellant suffered 100% disability but while assessing loss of income has not added anything towards loss of future prospects. Nothing has been awarded towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life also though petitioner has lost one of his hands in the accident and other is not functioning. Therefore, he prays that present appeal be allowed and compensation be enhanced suitably. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 argues that the amount of compensation as assessed and granted by the learned Claims Tribunal does not call for any interference. He prays for dismissal of the present appeal. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of Claims Tribunal. 10. Fact of accident so also liability is not disputed by learned counsel representing the Insurance Company, therefore, this Court is not entering into the said aspect. Only grievance of the appellant is with regard to quantum of compensation awarded. 11. Appellant has pleaded that he was working as Driver of JCB Machine, earning Rs.15,000/- per month and in support thereof examined one Shyam Ratan Kosle (AW-3), but failed to bring on record any documentary proof regarding his income. In absence of any evidence with respect to income of appellant, Page No.5 the finding of the Claims Tribunal assessing income of appellant at Rs.8,000/- per month, as per the Minimum Wages Act, cannot be faulted as perverse or illegal and it is hereby affirmed. 12. The Claims Tribunal relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajkumar vs. Ajay Kumar, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 in which Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued the guidelines how the disability is to be calculated, has assessed disability of appellant at 100%, which in the given facts and circumstances of the case, is correct and does not call for any interference. However, while computing loss of income to appellant due to permanent disability has not added anything towards future prospects. On the date of accident, appellant was 25 years of age and in the accident in question, he has lost one hand, therefore, the appellant is entitled for grant of compensation under the head permanent disability resulting in loss of earning, adding future prospects to his notional monthly income. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 in case where victim is below 40 years of age, 40% of actual income is to be added for loss of future prospects. Hence, appellant is entitled for grant of compensation under the head permanent disability, adding 40% towards future prospects to his notional monthly income. It is ordered accordingly. 13. Appellant has become 100% disabled, he has lost pleasures Page No.6 of life because after the accident he cannot live a normal life or will not be able to do his normal work and he has also lost his professional income. Therefore, the appellant deserves to be granted a sum of Rs.50,000/-towards the loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. It is ordered accordingly. 14. Going through the impugned award, it can be seen that compensation of Rs.55,000/- is awarded towards special diet, which, in the opinion of this Court, is slightly excessive. It is well settled that compensation must be “just” and not a bonanza to claimants. The Claims Tribunal has not discussed specific evidence while awarding Rs.55,000/- towards special diet. Therefore, I am inclined to reduce the same to Rs.30,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. 15. Perusal of impugned award would reveal that the compensation of Rs.8,78,361/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal towards medical expenses; Rs.55,000/- for pains & sufferings and Rs.25,000/- for transportation fee are based on proper appreciation of material brought on record by the appellant and the same does not call for any interference. 16. For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recompute the amount of compensation payable to appellant. 17. Income of appellant at Rs.8,000/- per month, as rightly assessed by the Claims Tribunal, and after adding 40% of income towards future prospects, as held above, total income of appellant comes to Rs.11200/- (8000 + 40% of 8000). Annual income of appellant comes to Rs.1,34,400/- Page No.7 (11200x12). Applying multiplier of 16, as rightly applied by the Claims Tribunal, the total loss of income would come to Rs.21,50,400/- (134400x16). Appellant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. Now the appellant is entitled for compensation of Rs.31,88,761/- (2150400 + 50000 + 878361+ 55000 + 30000 + 25000). This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of application till its payment. Any amount of compensation disbursed to appellant pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 18.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