1 2025:CGHC:21734 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 316 of 2017 Judgment reserved on : 17.03.2025 Judgment delivered on: 09 . 0 5 .2025 Aakul Sarkar S/o Radha Krishna Sarkar, Aged About 46 Years R/o P. V. 101, Vishnupur, Thana Bande, Tahsil- Pakhanjore, District- Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh ...Appellant/Claimant versus 1 - Ajit Sen S/o Hari Sen, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village 87 Thana Bande, Tahsil Pakhanjore, District Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh …..Driver 2 - Sadanand Tarafdar, S/o Pulin Tarafdar, Thana And Tahsil Pakhanjore, District Uttar Bastar Kanker , District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ...... Owner 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Branch Manager, M. B. Trade Center II Nd Floor Niyam Gandhi Chowk Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh...... Insurer ... Respondents _____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Alok Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. Prahlad Shrivas, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. _____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C A V Judgment Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 1. The Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the claimant/ appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') against the impugned award dated 24.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhanupratappur, District- Uttar Bastaranker (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 22/2016, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal while allowing the claim in part has awarded the total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 58,400/- with interest @ 9% per annum, in favour of the appellant/claimant. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 04.02.2013, when he was going on his motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG-04-CA-5651 from P.V. 101 to village- Bande and at that time near P.V. 87 main road, the respondent No. 1/ driver of the Commander Jeep Registration No. CG-04-ZD-7891 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the offending vehicle), came from wrong side and drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the vehicle of the appellant, due to which he received serious injuries over the body and he lost complete vision from right eye. The appellant was hospitalized in Pankhajur, and looking to his pitiable condition, he was referred to the Mekahara Hospital, Raipur for better treatment. The concerned Police registered an offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle. Prior to the said accident, the appellant was working as Driver and earning Rs. 8,000/- per month and maintained himself as well as his family. Due to the said accident, the appellant suffered permanent disability in the right eye and spend Rs. 8,51,000/- on his treatment. Therefore, the appellant preferred an application to claim a total compensation of Rs. 8,51,000/- . 3 3. Respondent No. 3/Insurance company in its written statement pleaded that respondent No. 1 was not having a valid and effective driving license and moreover, the present appellant/claimant is claiming for a hefty amount, the same falls under the breach and violation of insurance policy, liability, if any, to pay compensation is of respondents No. 1 and 2/ owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 4. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned Tribunal after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record passed the impugned award as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal by the claimant for enhancement. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal has erred to hold the monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 3,000/-, whereas, he was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month. Therefore, his income should be calculated appropriately and future prosects should be calculated. Similarly, the disability certificate Exhibit P/8 was issued by Medical Board to the extent of 30%, but the Tribunal has held the appellant to the extent of 10%, which is not appropriate. The disability certificate issued by the Medical Board has been proved by Dr. Sarita Kumeti (AW-2). The loss of future income and the awarded amount on the other heads is also on the lower side. He further submits that the appellant was only 40 years of age at the time of the accident and thus the appellant was entitled to not only pecuniary damages, but also non- pecuniary damages on account of pain and suffering and on account of loss of amenity of the vision of right eye. Therefore, this appeal may be allowed and the awarded compensation may kindly be suitably enhanced in favour of the appellant. He reliance placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ICICI Lombard 4 General Insurance Co. Ltds. vs. Ajay Kumar Mohanty and referred para 8 as under 1 “8. In arriving at the quantification of compensation, we must be guided by the well-settled principle that compensation can be granted both on account of permanent disability as well as loss of future earnings, because one head relates to the impairment of the person’s capacity and the other to the sphere of pain and suffering on account of loss of enjoyment of life by the person himself.” 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Tribunal considering all the relevant aspects of the matter and evidence available on record, has rightly granted compensation in favour of the claimant, which needs no interference by this Court. 7. I have heard counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. 8. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 9. Now, this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs. 58,400/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Though the claimant pleaded himself to be a Driver by profession and earning Rs. 8,000/- per month but there being no oral and documentary evidence substantiating the income of the appellant/claimant and the Tribunal assessed the same on notional basis as Rs. 3,000/- per month. Further, considering the evidence of Dr. Sarita Kumeti (AW-2) regarding the disability of the claimant to the extent of 30%, the disability was assessed as 10% by the Tribunal and considered his age 1 AIR 2019 SC (Civil) 489 5 i.e., 42 years and applied the multiplier of 14, considered his annual income prior to accident Rs. 36,000/- (3000x12), applying the multiplier of 14 on the aforesaid amount and considered his disability, the income comes to Rs. 50,400/-(3,000x12x14x10/100) and the learned Tribunal has also awarded compensation in other heads to the claimant i.e., towards loss of monthly income Rs. 3,000/-, towards medical expenses Rs. 1,000/- and towards travel expenses, special diet & attendant Rs. 2,000/- and also towards physical and mental agony Rs. 2,000/- and assessed the compensation to the tune of Rs. 58,400/-. 11. Considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 2013 and as regards income of the claimant, though the claimant has pleaded that he was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month as a driver, but no documentary or oral evidence in support thereof has been adduced. Therefore, in these circumstances, in absence of any proof regarding the income, the income of the appellant as a skilled labour is considered as Rs. 5,605/- per month and Rs. 67,260/- per annum as per minimum wages at the relevant time. In view of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, after adding the multiplier of 14 and considered his disability as assessed by the Tribunal 10%, loss of annual income of the claimant due to disability comes to Rs. 94,164/- (5,605x12x14x10/100), 25% of his annual income is to be added thereto towards future prospects. 12. Considering the overall medical documents filed by the claimant, the evidence of Dr. Sarita Kumeti (AW-2), the period of hospitalization of the claimant and the nature of injury/disability the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads and looking to the guidelines of 6 Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra), this Court is of the view that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on lower side and requires reconsideration. Thus, the claimant is entitled for the compensation in the following manner:- S. No. Head Awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) Awarded by this Court (Rs.) 01. Towards disability 50,400/- (3000x12x14x 10/100) 94,164/- (5,605x12x 14x10/100) 02. Towards future prospects (25%) _ 23,541 (94,164 x25/100) 03. Towards Loss of income (for one month due to hospitalization) 3,000/- 5,605/- 04. For medical expenses 1,000/- 25,000/- 05. Towards special diet, attendant and travel expenses 2,000/- 25,000/- 06. Towards physical and mental agony 2,000/- 1,00,000/- Total 58,400/- 2,73,310/- 13. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the claimant/appellant is held entitled for a total compensation of Rs. Rs.2,73,310/-. Since, the Claims Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 58,400/-, after deducting the said amount, the claimant/appellant is entitled for enhanced amount of Rs. 2,14,910/-. This additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till realization. The amount received by the claimant, if any, shall be adjusted in the enhanced sum. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 7 14. Appeal is partly allowed with modification in the impugned award to the extent as indicated herein above. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge AMIT PATEL