1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1101 of 2018 1 - Indrajeet Sharma S/o Shri Anand Kumar Sharma, Aged About 22 Years R/o M.I.G. - 47, Himalayan Hights, Opposite Jain Public School, Dumartarai, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Kamal Kumar Chandrakar S/o Shree Krishan Kumar Chandrakar, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village - Bancharoda, Gourbhaat, Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Driver) (Vehicle No. C.G. 04 K.J. 8103), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mohit Kumar Chandrakar S/o Shri Pehlad, R/o Village - Bancharoda, Gourbhaat Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner) (Vehicle No. C.G. 04 K.J.8103), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - United India Insurance Company Ltd., Through Divisional Manager, Division Office No. -2, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) (Vehicle No. C.G. 04 K.J. 8103), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 3/Insurance Company : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 16/06/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant/claimant for enhancement against the award dated 31.03.2018 passed by the learned 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District – Raipur (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 582/2016 whereby compensation of Rs. 2,15,506/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum, in favour of the appellant has been awarded. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, respondents No. 1, 2, and 3 are driver, owner, and insurer of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. CG-045-KJ-8103. The appellant/claimant has filed a claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident which is occurred on 04.07.2016 at about 6:00 PM near VIP Chowk, Raipur. At the time, the appellant was riding 3 his motorcycle (CG-074-HY-7136) from Avanti Vihar to his residence when the offending car, driven negligently by respondent No.1, struck him from behind, causing him serious injuries, particularly to his right knee and ankle. As a result, he underwent major surgery involving the implantation of rods and plates, suffered permanent disability, and remains under physiotherapy treatment. At the time of the accident, the appellant was 22 years old, a student at Demat College, and earned approximately Rs. 10,000/- per month by running coaching classes. A criminal case was registered at P.S. Telibandha under Sections 279, 337, and 338 IPC, and a charge sheet was filed. The respondents No. 1 and 2, in their reply, denied negligence and stated that the vehicle complied with insurance terms, shifting liability to the insurer. The insurance company denied liability by alleging that respondent No.1 did not hold a valid license at the time of the accident. The Tribunal, however, framed four issues for adjudication and, in para 21 of the judgment, held that respondent No.3 (the insurance company) was liable to pay the compensation. 3. The appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of award. In a regular accident, the appellant has sustained injuries in his femour bone as well as ankel for which he was treated for about 13 days and has sustained 25% permanent disability. The 4 appellant while studying in college was also doing coaching classes from which he was getting Rs. 10,000/- per month, however, the tribunal has not considered this aspect and has not considered the income of the injured appellant in prospective manner. Less income has been calculated by the tribunal. The disability to the extent of 25% has also not been considered and only 10% disability has been considered as such the awarded amount is required to be enhanced. 4. Learned counsel for the insurance company upon which the liability was fastened submits that the disability certificate has not in accordance with law. It has been obtained by private doctor whereas the disability certificate should have been obtained from Medical Board as such the disability to the extent of 25% cannot be accepted. She further submits that so far as income part is concerned that the income of the injured claimant has not been proved only averment in respect of Rs. 10,000/- per month income was made by the appellant which in absence of proving the same cannot be accepted. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From the evidence, the income of the injured claimant to the extent of 10% has not been proved. Further, the disability certificate since it has been issued by private doctor though he 5 has been examined before the Court but since the disability certificate has not been issued by the Medical Board as such the disability to the extent of 25% cannot be considered. The tribunal has already taken a lenient view and has considered the case of permanent disability to the extent of 10%. 7. Considering the overall aspect of the matter, this Court considered is fit to grant a sum of Rs. 20,000/- more in addition to the amount which has been awarded by the tribunal as the injured appellant suffered 13 days in hospital and thereafter he has also taken rest as such Rs. 20,000/- more is granted in additional to the amount which has been awarded by the tribunal. 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellant/claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 20,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 9. The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the Tribunal below. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal 6 workers may be availed with a co- ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants resides. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat