1 2025:CGHC:37804 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1045 of 2019 1. Chirag Beg S/o Late Chand Beg Aged About 29 Years R/o Village And Post Silyari, Police Station Urla, Civ. And Rev. District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant-claimant Versus 1. Komal Singh Thakur S/o Chintaram Thakur Aged About 34 Years R/o New Bus Stand Aarang, Present Address - Village - Amasivni, Beside Chetan Kirana Bhandar, Police Station Vidhansabha Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Driver, Swaraj Mazda No. Cg-04-JA-7080) 2. Anis Khan S/o Shri Ataullah Khan, R/o Mova, Police Station Pandri, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner, Swaraj Mazda No. Cg - 04-JA-7080). 3. National Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager/ Officer Incharge National Insurance Company Ltd. Zonal Office, Mobil Mahal, Second Floor, G.E. Road Raipur District Raipur C(G). (Insurer, Swaraj Mazda No. Cg - 04-JA-7080). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Swati Rani Saraf, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Deverishi Thakur, Advocate SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 31/7/2025 1. Appellant-claimant, who suffered grievous injuries in a road traffic accident, has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Court of learned Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 30.1.2019 in Claim Case No.583/2017. 2. Claimant-appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.14,95,000/-under various heads on account of grievous injuries sustained by him in a road accident caused by offending vehicle i.e. Swaraj Mazda bearing registration number CG04-JA-7080, driven in a rash and negligent manner by non-applicant No.1/ respondent No.1 herein. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, claimant was 27 years old, working in Oppo Mobile Company and getting monthly salary of Rs.7,500/-, however, due to injuries sustained by him in said accident, he is unable to do any work and is suffering pain and mental agony. 3. Non-applicant No.1 and 2 filed joint reply to application and denied the averments made therein. It was further pleaded that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3, non-applicant No.1-driver was 3 possessing valid driving license, and therefore, non-applicant No.3 is liable to pay compensation if any awarded. 4. Non-applicant No.3 also filed its reply to claim application and denied the averments made therein. It was denied that accident caused by the offending vehicle in which claimant suffered grievous injuries. Age, occupation and income of deceased was denied. It was also pleaded that exaggerated compensation is claimed. At the time of accident, driver of offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving license and even there was no permit and fitness certificate in favour of offending vehicle, therefore, insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence adduced by respective parties, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1; there was no element of contributory negligence or violation of conditions of insurance policy and accordingly, allowed the application in part and awarded total sum of Rs.1,29,392/- as compensation to claimant /appellant herein and fastened liability upon non- applicant No.3-Insurance Company to satisfy the award. 6. Learned counsel for claimant/appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal has not considered and awarded the amount of medical bills marked as Ex.P-9, Ex.P-32, Ex.P-43, Ex.P-82 4 and Ex.P-134. She further contended that the Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding compensation under the head of future prospects. 7. I have heard learned counsel for appellant and perused record of claim case. 8. Perusal of record would show that claimant-appellant in claim application pleaded that he was working in Oppo Mobile Company, getting salary of Rs.7,500/- per month, in the accident in question he suffered grievous injuries over head as also fracture in leg for which a rod was implanted for reunion of bone. Claimant has examined himself as AW-1. No other witness was examined to prove nature of injuries. Claims Tribunal while appreciating oral and documentary evidence has considered that appellant suffered head injury with SAH, composite fracture tibia midshaft left and traumatic pancreatitis. He remain admitted in hospital from 21.2.2017 to 7.3.2017. 9. Learned Claims Tribunal awarded most of medical bills produced by claimant except medical bills exhibited as Ex.P- 9, Ex.P-32, Ex.P-43, Ex.P-82 and Ex.P-134, by which advance payment was made to Narayana Hospital, Raipur. Reason assigned by the Claims Tribunal for not awarding amount of aforementioned bills is that claimant has not submitted final bill of Narayana Hospital prepared at the time 5 of discharge of claimant-appellant. 10. Discharge summary of Narayana Hospital, Raipur is filed as Ex.P-130 and the principal diagnosis depicts that claimant sustained head injury with SAH, composite fracture tibia midshaft left and traumatic pancreatitis. It is also mentioned that on 21.2.2017 claimant underwent surgery i.e. interlocking nail fixation left tibia and pancreas injury treated. Actual bill of inpatient prepared by hospital for payment by claimant- appellant is not available in record, therefore, it cannot be said that entire advance amount, as deposited by claimant, vide Ex.P-9, Ex.P-32, Ex.P-43, Ex.P-82 and Ex.P-134, could have been expended. However, looking to the period of hospitalization, as mentioned in discharge summary, it could not be overlooked that claimant remain admitted in a private hospital from 21.2.2017 to 7.3.2017 and during that period, he underwent surgery. The Claims Tribunal fell into error in overlooking this aspect and in not awarding amount mentioned in the said bills. Even, if for any reason, the claimant could not have produced final bill, advance payment to hospital, which is proved by receipts, could have been considered. Hence, I deem it appropriate to award the entire amount mentioned in medical bills Ex.P-9, Ex.P-32, Ex.P-43, Ex.P-82 and Ex.P-134, total of which comes to Rs.1,70,700/- (5000 + 20000 + 25000 + 40000 + 80700). It is ordered 6 accordingly. 11. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of income taking income of appellant as Rs.5,000/-, which is on lower side. Even if claimant failed to prove his income by admissible piece of evidence, the Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed the income notionally taking into consideration minimum wage notified by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the area where claimant was residing and for the period during which claimant met with accident. Claimant is resident of village Silyari, which is nearer to District Headquarter Raipur, therefore, taking into account minimum wage fixed for District Raipur, which is a ‘A’ grade area, for the period from 1.10.2016 to 331.3.2017, I deem it proper to fix income of appellant as Rs.6,206/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. Consequently, appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.18,618/- towards loss of income for a period of months. 12. The Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.7,500/- towards attendant charges for a period of 15 days @ Rs.500/- per day and a sum of Rs.20,000/- for pain and suffering, which does not call for interference and it is affirmed. A sum of Rs.4,500/- is granted for special diet, which in the opinion of this Court is on lower side looking to nature of injuries including fracture, suffered by the claimant and accordingly, it is enhanced to 7 Rs.6,000/-. 13. In view of above, claimant/appellant is now entitled for compensation as under;- HEADS : AMOUNT (In Rs.) Loss of income : 18,618=00 Medical expenses : 2,52,610=00 For pain and sufferings : 20,000=00 For Special Diet : 6,000=00 For Attendant : 7,500=00 Total: 3,04,728=00 14. Now, claimant/appellant is held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,04,728/- in place of Rs.1,29,392/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. This enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of application. Any amount disbursed to appellant pursuant to impugned award will be adjusted from the amount of compensation as awarded above. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 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 roshan/-