1 2025:CGHC:16388 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1001 of 2020 1 - Chaitram Yadav S/o Late Babu Lal Yadav Aged About 48 Years R/o- Vaishali Nagar Ward No. 06, Post- Kusmunda, Tahsil- Katghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1 - Ajay Kumar Karsh S/o Anand Ram Karsh Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Baksara (Pantora), Tahsil - Baloda, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle) 2 - M/s. Agrawal Stone Karshning Company Through- Proprietor Shri S.C. Agrawal, R/o- Ward No. 06, Agrahora Marg, Tahsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle) 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through- Branch Manager, Office Of Commercial Complex, Block-D, T.P. Nagar, Korba, Post- Korba, Tahsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Shubham Dev Mallick, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 08/04/2025 1. Claimant/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District – Korba (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 07.03.2020 passed in Motor Accident BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.04.16 10:21:46 +0530 2 Claim Case No.105/2018 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.1,21,000/- as compensation in an injury case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 10.09.2017 at about 9.30, appellant was travelling on his motor cycle bearing registration No.C.G.-12N/4469 towards Imalichhapar Kusmunda. When he reached near Mata Karma School Kusmunda, the respondent No.1, while driving the offending vehicle Trailor bearing registration No.C.G.-12S—1677 in rash and negligent manner dashed the motor cycle of the appellant, due to which he suffered grievous injuries on his right leg and on other parts of the body. He was immediately admitted to the SECL Hospital, thereafter, looking to his serious condition, he was referred to Apollo Hospital at Bilaspur, where he was admitted from 10.09.2017 to 20.09.2017. Due to the injuries, his right leg was operated and amputated from below the knee and he suffered permanent disablement due to the said accident. 3. Appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.22,00,000/- pleading therein that at the time of accident, he was aged about 48 years, working at CHP, SECL, Kusmunda as Mechanical Fitter Category-6 and getting monthly salary of Rs.71,985/-. Claimant had also sought compensation under all other heads as are available to him like medical expenses, special diet, future medical expenses, pain and sufferings etc. 4. Non-applicant Nos.1 & 2 submitted reply and resisted the claim. It was pleaded that the accident was occurred due to self negligence of the appellant, who was driving his motor cycle in a very rash and negligent 3 manner, when he run over the speed breaker at high speed, could not control the motor cycle. The accident was not occurred with the offending vehicle. The claim petition was filed exaggerating the amount of compensation. It was also pleaded that on the date of incident respondent No.1 was having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. The vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.3 and there was no breach of policy condition. It was pleaded that in case, appellant is entitled for compensation, then respondent No.3 will be liable to pay the compensation. 5. Non-applicant No.3-Insurer of offending vehicle, submitted reply to claim application denying the pleadings made therein. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, the respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently without having any valid licence, there was breach of condition of insurance policy, hence, insurance company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 6. Upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, learned Claims Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1, due to which the appellant suffered injuries. Breach of Policy condition was not found to be proved. Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.1,21,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum, fastened liability upon non-applicant No.3- Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation. 7. Learned counsel for appellant submits that Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation overlooking the nature of injuries and the disability suffered by appellant. He contended that in the motor 4 vehicle accident, appellant has lost his one leg as there is amputation of right leg below knee. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded just and proper amount towards loss of amenities in life and meager sum of Rs.10,000/- is only awarded. She also contended that learned Claims Tribunal though held that appellant could not able to join his duties for a period of one month but has not awarded the entire salary for one month, has awarded only Rs.10,000/- which also is erroneous. She also submits that learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards grievous injuries overlooking the amputation of one leg of appellant below the knee he has to suffer and live his whole life with amputated leg. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that the appellant is an employee of the SECL, his income is not affected with the nature of injuries, which he suffered with the accident. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation under all the heads for which the appellant is entitled. The amount of compensation is also awarded towards the loss of income during the laid down period of Rs.10,000/- as the appellant failed to prove that he did not receive salary for that period. He further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs.10,000/- towards the loss of amenities in life which is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 supports the impugned award. 10. It is not in dispute that appellant suffered amputation of right leg below knee in motor vehicle accident. The learned Claims Tribunal has not 5 considered the percentage of disability as pleaded and stated by the appellant in absence of medical certificate. In the aforementioned facts of the case, when the appellant failed to prove extent of disability suffered by him by producing medical certificate issued by the Medical Board, in the facts of the case where the appellant suffered amputation of his right leg below knee, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have considered the schedule appended to the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 for the purpose of ascertaining the disability. 11. True it is that appellant is in permanent employment and he has not suffered any loss of income due to the disability/amputation of the right leg below knee, however, in the facts of the case, when appellant suffered amputation of right leg below the knee and had taken treatment in the hospital, is entitled for the compensation under the other heads like pains and suffering, loss of amenities in life, compensation for the grievous injuries suffered by him and special diet etc. 12. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.11,000/- towards attendant which in the facts of the case is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Learned Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs.80,000/- towards pains and suffering and mental pain and agony and deformity , which in the opinion of this Court is on lower side. The appellant has to live whole of his life with amputated right leg, he suffered pains and suffering when his right leg was amputated below the knee and therefore, in the opinion of this Court the amount of Rs.80,000/- can be considered as compensation towards pains and suffering and mental agony. The appellant is further entitled for 6 Rs.50,000/- towards grievous injuries and loss of his right leg below knee. Further appellant is entitled to get Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities in the life as appellant could not able to live his life and enjoy his married and social life like an ordinary man, appellant is further entitled for Rs.10,000/- towards special diet and Rs.71,985/- as loss of salary for one month because the learned Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that due to the nature of injuries suffered, appellant may not have worked for a period of one month. Even if the appellant is entitle for leave for treatment, but it cannot be lost sight of the fact the leave for which appellant was entitle under service rules, he could have utilized the leave period of the injury suffered in motor accident, for his other medical ailment. Nonetheless appellant has expended his leave kept in his leave account and therefore, he is entitled for the salary of whole month for which he could not join his duties. 13. For the forgoing discussions the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellant required recomputation, which is as under :- S.N. Head Amount. 1. For pain and suffering and mental agony : Rs. 80,000.00 2. For grievous injury : Rs. 50,000.00 3. Loss of amenities in life : Rs. 50,000.00 4. For attendant : Rs. 11,000.00 5. For special diet : Rs. 10,000.00 6. For loss of salary for one month : Rs. 71,985.00 Total Compensation : Rs.2,72,985.00 7 14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,72,985.00. Any amount paid to the appellant as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram