1 2025:CGHC:46671 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1138 of 2024 1 - Manoj Kumar Kata S/o Rajaram Kata Aged About 24 Years R/o Bargaon, Post Office Bargaon, Thana Buden, District Nuwapara (Odisha) ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Sadanand Tandi S/o Kumar Mani Tandi Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Nehana Khana Khariyar, District Nuwapara (Odisha) (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. Cg 04 Ml 7200) 2 - J. S. Transport Corporation Through Mata Road Carrier, Near Lunkad Petrol Pump Heerapur Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. Cg 04 M.L. 7200) 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager Divisional Office No. 2, Address 2nd Floor L.I.C. Building Phase 1 Jeevan Beema Marg Pandri Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. Cg 04 M.L. 7200) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Shri A.L.Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Shri Deepak Gupta, Advocate ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board 11/09/2025 1. Heard on I.A.No.1, application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2 2. Though opposed, for the reasons stated in the application and also considering that the Motor Vehicle Act is a benovelant legislation, delay of 122 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Heard on admission. 4. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) has been filed by the appellant challenging the award dated 31/10/2023 passed in claim case No.244/2020 by the 9th Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, CG, by which against a claim of Rs.40 lakhs, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.19,89,938/- to the appellant/claimant on account of injuries and permanent disablement sustained by him in an accident that occurred on 19/12/2018 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Truck) bearing registration No.CG-04 ML-7200 driven by respondent No.1/ driver, owned by respondent No.2/owner and insured with respondent No.3/ insurance company. 5. As per pleadings of the claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, the appellant / claimant was a labour and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month and sustained permanent disablement to the tune of 70%, therefore, abovestated compensation was claimed. 6. The claim application was resisted by respondent No.2 denying the averments of the claim application and pleaded that the incident occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the appellant/claimant and if any compensation is awarded, liability to pay the same is upon the insurance company. 7. The insurance company also filed its written statement denying the averments and pleaded that there is a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as the vehicle was being driven by respondent No.1 without valid and effective driving license as also fitness and permit. 8. Learned Tribunal framed issues on the basis of above pleadings and decided the same in favour of the appellant/claimant and awarded abovestated compensation. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amount of compensation 3 is on the lower side. Though the disability was proved to be 70%, learned Tribunal found loss of earning capacity to be 50%. He submits that adequate compensation has not been awarded on all other admissible heads, however, he fairly submits that the medical bills produced by the appellant has been duly considered. 10. Learned counsel for the insurance company opposes the above submission and submits that just compensation has been awarded and assessment of 50% for loss of earning capacity is based upon proper appreciation of evidence. Therefore, the appeal has not merit and is liable to be dismissed. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. The appellant was aged about 24 years at the time of accident. According to him, he was engaged in labour work in the agricultural field. A certificate (Ex.P/175) has been filed indicating therein that there is 70% disability on his right leg and shoulder. 13. Learned Tribunal relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343, assessed the loss of earning capacity to the tune of 50% looking to the injuries sustained, nature of job and analyzing the statement of the doctor Vipul kumar Garg which appears to be based on proper appreciation of evidence and it does not require any interference by this Court. 14. Learned Tribunal has also assessed the monthly income of the deceased to Rs.7800/- looking to the fact that no documentary evidence was placed on record and minimum wages prevailing on the day which appears to be reasonable and is hereby maintained. Thereafter, the Tribunal also added 40% future prospects in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) and thus awarded compensation of Rs.11,79,360/- for loss of future earning and entire medical bills of Rs.7,60,578/- was also awarded. Apart from this, Rs.25,000/- for mental and physical agony, Rs.10,000/- for attendant, Rs.10,000/- for nutritional diet, Rs.5,000/- for transportation were also awarded. 15. The amount of compensation awarded appears to be reasonable and just. The Court has to see whether just compensation has been awarded or not. The 4 compensation should not be meagre or bonanza. Looking from all angles, this Court does not find any good ground to admit the appeal. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed at motion stage. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.09.16 12:32:15 +0530