1 / 9 2025:CGHC:26574 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1065 of 2019 • Harichand S/o Kamtaram Sahu Aged About 25 Years Through Legal Guardian Father S/o Kamtaram Sahu S/o Badduram Sahu Aged About 55 Years, R/o Near Shiv Mandir Mangala Thana- Civil Line And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant/ applicant/ Claimant versus 1. Vanshgopal S/o Dodan Prasad Aged About 29 Years R/o Didoudh Thana Kothi District- Satna, Madhya Pradesh. Possibility Addresses- (A)- Village- Jammvada Metguda Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. (B)- Near- Masjid Talapara Thana- Civil Line Tahsil and District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.. (Driver of the Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.G. 07/C.A./1565). 2. Moh. Nashruddin S/o Moh. Mobin Khan Aged About 42 Years R/o House No. M- 52 Vaishali Nagar, Ward No. 10 Kohka Bhilai District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. Possibility Address- Village- Metguda Jagdalpur Ambedkar Ward Thana- Bodhjhat District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh.(Owner of the Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.G. 07/C.A./1565). 3. The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office- 1st Floor Rama Trade Center In Front Of Rajeev Plaza Old Bus Stand Road Bilaspur Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.(Insurer of the Offending Vehicle Truck No. C.G. 07/C.A./1565) --- Respondents/ Non-applicants ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 23/06/2025 1. Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 9 compensation, challenging the award dated 30.01.2019 passed by Learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 01/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 41,30,831/- as compensation in motor accidental injury case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 01.04.2017, when appellant riding on his motor cycle was returning back to his home from Magneto Mall, Telibandha, Raipur, crossing Mahasamund barrier near Telibandha, Raipur, non-applicant no. 1 while driving vehicle truck bearing No. CG07 CA 1565 (hereinafter referred as “offending truck”) rashly and negligently hit the appellant from behind, due to which he suffered serious injuries. Based on the information of accident, Crime No. 126/17 for alleged offences under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against an unknown truck at Police Station-Telibandha, Raipur. 3. Appellant-claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 88,00,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident appellant was about 25 years of age, was a healthy and able bodied person. Before the accident, the appellant was doing work in Magneto Mall Telibandha Raipur and was earning ₹ 1,33,281/- per year, but due to the loss of one hand and one leg in the accident, he became completely incapable of doing his work. He needs help of two persons even for his daily work and is unable to walk. 4. Respondents No. 1 & 2 / Non-applicant No. 1 & 2 -driver and owner of the offending truck submitted their reply to the claim application, while denying the adverse pleadings made therein, it was further pleaded that the alleged accident occurred due to careless and negligent driving of his 3 / 9 motorcycle by the applicant himself, no accident occurred with the offending truck. The applicant has filed a claim case on false grounds. On the date of accident, non-applicant No. 1 was possessed with a valid and effective driving license to drive the alleged offending truck and the truck was comprehensively insured with non-applicant No. 3. 5. Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company filed its reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, pleaded that the First Information Report has been lodged against an unknown vehicle and the vehicle truck has been falsely implicated. On the date of accident, non-applicant No. 1 did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive the truck and the vehicle was being driven without permit and fitness certificate. The accident occurred due to the negligence and careless driving of the motorcycle by the applicant/injured and hence he is not entitled to receive compensation for his own negligence. The owner of the motorcycle driven by the applicant and the insurance company have not been made party to the case, hence the case is not maintainable. There is contributory negligence of applicant in the accident. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that appellant-Harichand Sahu suffered grievous injuries resulting permanent disability in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending truck owned by non- applicant No. 2 and driven by non-applicant No. 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy, contributory negligence and non-joinder of parties were not found to be proved, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 41,30,831/- as total compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application and fastened liability upon non-applicant No. 3- insurance Company. 4 / 9 7. Learned counsel for appellant-claimant would submit that this appeal seeking enhancement of amount of compensation is filed on the ground that the Claims Tribunal has erroneously assessed loss of earning capacity due to permanent disability suffered by the appellant as 90% only overlooking the fact that in the motor accident appellant suffered severe injuries over his person including the injuries over his left leg and right hand. One of the leg and one hand of appellant was amputated due to motor accidental injuries. The disability certificate issued by the competent authority is filed along the claim application as Ext. P-181 mentioning the disability suffered by appellant, nature of disability to be permanent and not likely to be improved. He next contended that the Claims Tribunal has erred in not awarding sufficient amount of compensation under the head of loss of amenities in life and for special diet during period of treatment. He places reliance upon the recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Atul Tiwari vs. Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported in (2025) 3 SCC 6. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that the Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed loss of earning capacity considering the nature of disability as mentioned in the disability certificate Ext. P-181. He next contended that sufficient amount has already been awarded to the claimant under the head of pain and sufferings and loss of marriage prospects of ₹ 3 Lakh each, hence, the impugned award passed by learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. 10. Learned counsel for appellant seeking enhancement of amount of compensation has made two folds submission; first, that looking to the nature 5 / 9 of disability suffered and the loss of parts of body, loss of earning capacity would be 100% in place of 90%. To appreciate the submission of learned counsel for appellant, I have perused the record of claim case in which the claimant has produced copy of appointment letter issued by the Big Bazar, Raipur in which he has been shown to be appointed as coordinator, which shows that the appellant was an educated person and has bright future. In the motor vehicle accident, appellant has suffered multiple injuries and some of the injuries resulted in amputation of left upper limb and right lower limb apart from the fracture of left femur shaft with K-nail in situ. Aforementioned nature of injury and the amputation is mentioned in the discharge summery of Ram Krishna Hospital which is part of Ext. P-156. Looking to the nature of employment in which the appellant was engaged prior to the date of accident and amputation of left upper limb and right lower limb had definitely made the appellant permanent disabled and affecting his earning capacity to the extent of 100%. Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the loss of earning capacity to the extent of 90% only, which is not sustainable and it is hereby set aside. 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar and another reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 has considered the assessment with regard to award of compensation in personal injury case resulting in permanent disability and held thus: “13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether 6 / 9 he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. 14. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred per cent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of “loss of future earnings”, if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not be found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity. 15. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may.” 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Atul Tiwari (supra), while considering grant of compensation in case of permanent disability suffered by appellant therein has observed thus: “36. It is a well-accepted norm that money cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation so far as money 7 / 9 can compensate. This Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 254 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 153 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258] has observed that basis for assessment of all damages for personal injury is compensation. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered. In some cases for personal injury, the claim could be in respect of lifetime's earnings lost because, though he will live, he cannot earn his living. In others, the claim may be made for partial loss of earnings. Each case has to be considered in the light of its own facts and at the end, one must ask whether the sum awarded is a fair and reasonable sum. 37. In view of the above discussion and the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, this Court is of the view that the High Court only to the extent of enhancing the compensation of the petitioner under the head — loss of income has not made any error. However, the High Court has utterly failed in not delving into the correctness of the compensation granted by MACT under other heads. Therefore, this Court is inclined to enhance the amount of compensation to be granted to the petitioner to Rs. 48,00,000 in toto, the same is hereby matched with the amount claimed by him in his application before MACT. 13. Taking into considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of injuries as also amputation of upper limb and lower limb and further the aforementioned decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Rajkumar (supra) and Atul Tiwari (supra), in the opinion of this Court, appellant suffered 100% loss of earning capacity. It is ordered accordingly. 14. With regard to the second ground of learned counsel for appellant that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded sufficient amount of compensation under the head of loss of amenities in life is concerned, Claims Tribunal has awarded lump-sum amount of ₹ 3 Lakh towards pain and suffering as also loss of marital prospects, however, no amount of compensation under the 8 / 9 head of loss of amenities in life is awarded. Appellant on the date of accident was aged about 25 years, now he has to live all his life with the disability which he suffered. Looking to the background with which the appellant came and further considering that he was employed as coordinator in the Big Bazar Mart and was having good income as a startup. Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards special diet during period of his treatment, considering the period of treatment, nature of injuries, I find it appropriate to award ₹ 25,000/- towards special diet. It is ordered accordingly. Apart from the above, appellant will further be entitled for the amount of compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal in para-23 of the award. 15. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellants-claimants requires recomputation, which is as under. 16. Annual income of appellant is found to be ₹ 1,33,281/-. Income of appellant after adding 40% towards future prospects is assessed by the Claims Tribunal as ₹ 1,86,493/-, it is in accordance with law, hence, it is affirmed. Appellant on the date of accident was 25 years of age, there shall be multiplier of 18. As this Court held the appellant suffered loss of 100% earning capacity, therefore, appellant will be entitled for ₹ 33,56,874/- (₹ 1,86,493x18). Apart from the above appellant will further be entitled for amount incurred towards medical expenses ie., ₹ 3,69,645/-, for future medical expenses ₹ 3 Lakh, for conveyance ₹ 40,000/-, for attendant ₹ 1 Lakh, for mental pain and suffering & loss of marriage prospects ₹ 3 Lakh, for loss of amenities in life ₹ 1 Lakh, and for special diet ₹ 25,000/-. Particulars Compensation Loss of earning capacity to be 100%, after application of 40% towards future prospects and multiplier of 18 ₹ 33,56,847/- Medical Expenses ₹ 3,69,645/- Future Medical Treatment ₹ 3,00,000/- Conveyance Expenses ₹ 40,000/- 9 / 9 Attendant cost ₹ 1,00,000/- Special Diet ₹ 25,000/- Pain and sufferings and marriage prospect ₹ 3,00,000/- Total ₹ 44,91,519/- 17. Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 44,91,519/- instead of ₹ 41,30,831/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount paid to the appellant-claimant pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 18. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn