-1- 2025:CGHC:24768 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1085 of 2019 Manish Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Harsewak Lal Sharma Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Ratapali, Thana Komakhan, Tahsil Civil And Revenue District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh........Claimant ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Ramesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Mangal Ram Yadav Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Dhobipada, Khariyar Road, Thana Jonk, Civil And Revenue District Nuapada Orissa.......(Driver Of The Truck No. CG 04 ZC 0370) 2 - Bhulau Kewat S/o Shri Heerasingh Kewat Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Banka, Ward No. 1, K. T. Road, Thana Jonk Civil And Revenue District Nuapada Orissa (Owner Of The Truck No. CG 04 ZC 0370) 3 - Oriental Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office Madina Building Jail Road, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Truck No. CG 04 ZC 0370) ... Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 17/06/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally. Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.06.24 10:27:52 +0530 -2- 2. This is the claimant’s appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (CG) vide award dated 27.10.2018 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. H-221/2014. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the claimant/appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, seeking compensation stating therein that on 25.10.2012 at about 4:00 p.m. when the applicant was walking with the crowd for Durga immersion, driver of a truck CG 04-ZC/370 drove his vehicle rashly and negligently into the crowd, due to which, one person died and the applicant received severe injuries on his head, hands, legs and chest, who was taken to Primary Health Center, Khariyar Road for first aid. Looking to his serious condition, he was referred to Mekahara Hospital Raipur and thereafter applicant's family admitted him to Shri Narayana Hospital on 25.10.2012. Applicant remained admitted there till 05.11.2012 and took treatment. Before the accident, the applicant was a 19-years-old healthy and hardworking young boy. He was earning Rs. 200/- per day by working as a labourer. After the accident, the applicant is not able to earn income due to disability caused by the injuries. The applicant is unable to perform his daily routine work, due to which, severe financial difficulties have arisen for the applicant and as a result of the accident, the applicant is facing -3- mental, physical pain and suffering. Applicant/claimant prayed for total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from non-applicants. 4. Non-applicant No.1 remained ex-parte in the claim proceedings, no written statement was filed on his behalf. 5. Non-applicant No.2 has filed his written statement stating that at the time of the accident, the driver of vehicle number CG 04 ZC 0370 i.e non-applicant No.1 was a valid licensed driver and the said vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3. Therefore, it is the non-applicant No.3 which is liable to pay amount of compensation, if any. 6. Non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company by filing its written statement has stated that on the date of accident, the vehicle truck no. CG 04- ZC/0370, was driven in violation of conditions of the insurance policy and hence, non-applicant No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation amount. On the date of accident, the said vehicle, truck no. CG 04- ZC/0370, which is a goods carrier, was used for Durga Visarjan, carrying passengers and taking out processions in violation of the Motor Vehicle Rules and conditions contained in the insurance policy. The vehicle owner and driver violated the conditions of insurance policy, hence applicant No.3/Insurance Company is not liable to pay amount of compensation. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 -4- rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which appellant/claimant suffered grievous injuries. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found to be proved, learned Claims Tribunal held non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company liable to pay the amount of compensation. Assessing income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/- per month, calculated amount of compensation under different heads, awarded total compensation of Rs.73,596/ -. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant suffered motor accidental injury. He was admitted in Narayana Hospital Raipur for treatment of injuries from 25.10.2012 till 05.11.2012. He suffered head injury. However, learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded sufficient amount of compensation against the injuries, pains and suffering and amount awarded under other heads like loss of income, special diet etc. are also on lower side. 9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/Insurance Company submits that learned Tribunal in its award has categorically recorded a finding that appellant failed to prove any permanent disability and the amount of compensation awarded is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of case. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation on all heads for which appellant is entitled. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of Claim Case. 11. Perusal of record of Claim Case would show that claimant/appellant -5- has filed Discharge Summary Card as Ex.P-60 in which it is only mentioned that- H/o RTA (History of Road Traffic Accident). In the said document Diagnosis is mentioned as -Head Injury with Extensive L.W. Over Scalp, Head Injury managed conservative treatment. 12. From the above mentioned contents of Discharge Summary Card, it is apparent that appellant has not suffered any fracture injury over his person resulting in his permanent disability. 13. Learned Claims Tribunal while considering the award of compensation under head of injury recorded a finding that claimant/appellant did not examine doctor to prove nature of injury nor he suffered permanent disability as no disability certificate has been brought on record. The said finding of learned Tribunal is on appreciation of evidence. 14. Learned Tribunal has awarded compensation for entire medical bills of Rs.54096/- Learned counsel for the appellant could not able to point out that any of the bill placed by the appellant in evidence escaped consideration of the Claims Tribunal. In absence of said ground, the finding recorded by Claims Tribunal awarding Rs.54,096/- towards medical expenses cannot be said to be erroneous. Accordingly, said finding of learned Tribunal awarding Rs.54,096/- towards medical expenses is affirmed. 15. Appellant/claimant remained admitted in the hospital for about 10 days. He suffered head injury. After discharge from the hospital, it may not be possible for a patient suffered with head injury to immediately start doing the work for the purpose of earning livelihood which he was -6- doing prior to date of accident. 16. In the claim application appellant has pleaded that he was 19 years of age at the time of accident and earning Rs.200/- per day by working as labourer. However, income has not been proved by the appellant before Tribunal by bringing cogent and reliable piece of evidence, in absence of which learned Tribunal has rightly assessed income of the applicant on notional basis as Rs.4500/- per month. Considering the nature of injury suffered by appellant, instead of award of loss of income for a period of 1 month, I find it appropriate to award loss of income for 2 months. It is ordered accordingly. Now the appellant will be entitled for the loss of income of Rs.9000/- (4500x 2) for two months. 17. The claimant will further be entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards ‘pains and suffering’, Rs.10,000/- towards ‘special diet’ and Rs.5,000/- towards ‘attendant’. 18. For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. Loss of Income for 2 months (4500 x 2 = 9,000) : Rs. 9,000 2. Medical Expenses : (+) Rs. 54,096 3. Pain and Suffering : (+) Rs. 15,000 4. Special Diet : (+) Rs. 10,000 5. Attendant : (+) Rs. 5,000 Total compensation Rs. 93,096 -7- 19. Now the appellant/claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs. 93,096/- instead of Rs.73,596/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 20. Aforementioned total amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7 per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Other conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 21. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein above. Sd/-/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen