1 / 5 2025:CGHC:31111 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1071 of 2019 • Subhesh Jogi S/o Late Heeralal Jogi Aged About 23 Years R/o Ghoghrapara Ward No. 8, Pandaria, at Present Resident of Manjhwapara, Jarhabhatha, Police Station Civil Line, Tahsil and District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant/ Applicant/ Claimant versus 1. Mulchand Chelkar S/o Pundas Chelkar Aged About 22 Years R/o Village - Gandhiwadih, Police Station And Tahsil Patharia, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 2. Khilesh Kumar Gahire S/o Rohit Kumar Gahire Aged About 22 Years R/o Village - Gandhirwadih, Police Station And Tahsil Patharia, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh (Owner) 3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager, Branch Office Third Floor Gurukripa Tower, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer) ---Respondents/ Non-applicants ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Ms. Pranoti Das, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Ashutosh Rathore, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 07/07/2025 1. Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the award dated 30.04.2019 passed by Learned PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 5 Sixth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 256/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 1,41,213/- as compensation in motor accidental injury case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 10.09.2017 applicant Subhesh Jogi along with her wife Usha Bai was going from his native place Pandariya to Manpur on motorcycle no. CG09JE1255. When he reached near village Bijatarai, non-applicant No. 1 while driving his motorcycle No. CG28B6318 (henceforth “offending motorcycle”) rashly and negligently coming from opposite direction, dashed the motorcycle of Subesh Jogi and caused accident. In the accident, applicant suffered grievous injuries. He was admitted to Mundra Hospital, Bilaspur, underwent operation of his leg. 3. Appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 10,00,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident appellant was about 23 years of age, was a physically fit person. Before accident he was doing the work of Mason and was earning ₹ 200/- per day ie. ₹ 6,000/- per month. Due to accident, he is unable to work as he was used to do before accident. 4. Respondent No. 1 / Non-applicant No. 1 -driver of the offending motorcycle filed his reply to the application and denied the pleadings made therein. It was further stated that on the date of accident, offending motorcycle was insured with non-applicant No. 3. 5. Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company filed its reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that on the date of accident, offending motorcycle was being driven in breach of conditions of insurance policy as 3 / 5 the driver of the offending motorcycle did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that appellant-Subhesh Jogi suffered grievous injuries in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending motorcycle driven by non-applicant No. 1. Contributory negligence on the part of appellant injured, breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved. Calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 1,41,213/- as total compensation with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization and fastened liability to satisfy the award upon non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company. 7. Learned counsel for appellant-claimant would submit that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre sum of compensation. He contended that the income of appellant-claimant has been assessed on lower side overlooking the date of accident and nature of occupation as pleaded and stated by the claimant. Appellant suffered fracture injury over his right leg, there was fracture of shaft femur upper third. Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation towards the grievous injury and prays for suitable enhancement of amount of compensation. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that the Claims Tribunal in the facts of the case has awarded just compensation which does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. 10. Sofar as the submission made by learned counsel for appellant with regard to assessment of income of appellant on the date of accident is concerned, to prove the fact of income, appellant examined himself as AW-1, in his evidence he stated that he was working as a Mason from which he was 4 / 5 earning ₹ 200-250 per day. It is also admitted that he has not produced any document or admissible piece of evidence in support of his income. As no substantive and admissible piece of evidence is brought on record except self serving statement of appellant, Claims Tribunal justified in assessing the income of appellant-claimant on notional basis, however, fell into error in not taking into consideration factors like age of applicant, date of accident, cost of living, price index and wages prevailing on the date of accident ie.,of the year 2017 and has not considered minimum wages fixed by the competent authority for the unskilled, semi skilled and skilled labourer. As the appellant- claimant failed to prove nature of occupation and income of appellant, I find it appropriate to hold that the occupation of appellant to be one of the unskilled labourer. 11. As there is no material to suggest the wages fixed at the place where the appellant was resident of, therefore, I find it appropriate to take help of minimum wages fixed by the competent authority and prevailing within the State of Chhattisgarh. As per the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, minimum wages fixed for the period from 01.10.2017 till 31.03.2018 for unskilled labourer for C-Zone area is ₹ 7,930/- per month. Therefore, the monthly income of appellant on the date of accident as pleaded of ₹ 6,000/- cannot be said to be excessive. Hence, income of claimant is assessed as ₹ 6,000 per month. It is ordered accordingly. 12. Further perusal of award would show that the Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that appellant-claimant could not be able to work for three months, therefore, he suffered loss of income during the period of treatment for three months which comes to ₹ 18,000/- (₹ 6000x3). Claims Tribunal has awarded ₹ 1,16,213/- towards medical expenses of the hospital, which in the opinion of this Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference as during course of argument learned counsel for appellant-claimant could not 5 / 5 point out that the Tribunal fell into error in not considering any of the document towards medical expenses or escaped consideration of any such bill/ document while assessing compensation under the head of medical expenses. Appellant-claimant suffered fracture injuries over his right leg and right foot. Tribunal has awarded ₹ 5,000/- towards pain and suffering which is on lower side. Considering the nature of injuries suffered, I find it appropriate to award ₹ 15,000/- towards pain and suffering instead of ₹ 5,000/-. Appellant-claimant will further be entitled for compensation of ₹ 8,000/- towards conveyance expenses and special diet, instead of ₹ 5,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 13. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellant-claimant requires recomputation, which is as under. Particulars Compensation Loss of income during laid down period of 03 months (₹ 6000x3) ₹ 18,000/- Medical expenses (affirmed) ₹ 1,16,213/- Mental Pain and sufferings ₹ 15,000/- Special Diet and conveyance ₹ 8,000/- Total ₹ 1,57,213/- 14. Now the appellant/claimant shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 1,57,213/- instead of ₹ 1,41,213/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount paid to the appellant-claimant pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 15. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn