1 2025:CGHC:13817 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1066 of 2020 1 - Smt. Usha Devi Jaishwal W/o Late Ram Kripal Jaishwal, Aged About 70 Years R/o Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh...............Claimant, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Ramu Singh Tekam S/o Hari Bhajan Singh Tekam, Aged About 23 Years R/o Kartali Bhadrapara, Police Station Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle)............Non-Applicant 2 - Tarachand Ueke S/o Shri Budhwar Singh Ueke, Aged About 33 Years R/o Baksahi, Police Station Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle)............Non-Applicant 3 - Chola Mandalam, M.S. General Insurance Company Limited, Through Incharge Of Chhattisgarh, Chola Mandalama, M.S. General Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, Simiran Tower, Infront Of L.I.C. Building, Pandari, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle)................Non-Applicant ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Kumar along with Ms. Kalyani Kashyap, Advocates on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Jasraj Sigh Bhatia, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 22/03/2025 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 award dated 28.11.2019 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Katghora, District – Korba (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 104/2017. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 01.07.2016, the applicant along with her son namely, Girish Kumar Jaiswal were going towards Katghora from Bilaspur in their Alto Car and when they reached near near Dilip Tea Centre, near the bridge between Beltara Coal Washery and Adhiyaripara, at that time, the offending car i.e. Hyundai EON bearing Registration No. CG 12 AG 0508 which was driven by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, dashed the two-wheeler vehicle which caused serious injuries to the appellant and her son Girish Kumar Jaiswal. Subsequent to the accident, a criminal case was lodged against the Respondent No. 1. 3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the motor accident of the appellant is not in dispute and the liability fastened upon the insurance company is also not in dispute. The appellant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation as the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded meager sum as amount of compensation overlooking the nature of injury and permanent disability suffered by the appellant over her right knee. 4. He contended that the injury suffered by the appellant is at the age of 70 years, she has to suffer and face problems due to permanent disability for rest of her life in her old age. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded very meager sum of Rs. 10,000/- for pains and suffering and special died jointly. No amount has been awarded towards loss of amenities in future life and further, no amount is awarded towards the attendant. Looking to the nature of injury and disability suffered, it cannot be ignored that the appellant at the age of 70 years was in the need of attendant during the 3 time of her treatment and till her recovery from the injuries and therefore, the amount of compensation awarded be suitably enhanced. He also submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has not properly awarded the loss of income due to the permanent disability and has awarded only a sum of Rs. 64,930/-. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 opposes the submission made by the counsel for the appellant and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal after considering the nature of injury, permanent disability suffered by the appellant had awarded on almost all the heads under which, the appellant is entitled for the amount of compensation. He contended that considering the permanent disability to the extent of 17.72% for the whole body, learned Claims Tribunal calculating the income of the appellant based on the notional income of unskilled labour has calculated the amount and has awarded Rs. 64,930/- towards the loss of income. The medical bills produced and proved has been awarded and further, Rs.10,000/- has been awarded pains and sufferings and special diet and Rs. 5,000/- for conveyance, loss of income during the laid down period has also been awarded. Hence, the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference. He do not dispute the liability fastened upon the insurance company to pay the amount of compensation. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of learned Claims Tribunal. 7. Perusal of the award dated 28.11.2019 would show that the accident, nature of injury and the permanent disability suffered by the appellant is not in dispute. The appellant suffered 44.30% permanent disability over 4 her right knee and as per the disability certificate proved by Dr. Ghanshyam Diwan (A.W. - 3), the disability suffered on right knee will have the effect of 17.72% on the whole body. 8. Learned Claims Tribunal on appreciation of evidence has found that the appellant has failed to prove the nature of self-employment of running a medical store and the income pleaded to be not found proved as there was no renewal of license for medical store during the period of accident and assessed the income of appellant on notional basis, considering the minimum wages as prevailing on the date of accident on the date of accident of Rs. 6,107/-. Accordingly, the amount of compensation towards the loss of income for the rest of the life has been calculated to the tune of Rs. 64,930/-. 9. Learned Claims Tribunal has also awarded the medical bills produced and proved which is to the tune of Rs. 1,76,526/-. Learned counsel for the appellant failed to prove that any bills produced and proved was not considered by the learned Claims Tribunal and has not been awarded. Learned Claims Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards the conveyance expense against the claim of Rs. 14,400/-, Rs. 10,000/- towards the pains and sufferings and special diet which, in the opinion of this Court is on the lower side. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards the loss of amenities for the rest of her life, ignoring the age of the appellant to be 70 years and especially, being a lady. Definitely, she will suffer with problems in performing her day to day activities in her old age due to disability suffered due to injury over right knee when she was 70 years of age on the date of accident. 5 10. Considering the entirety of the facts of the case, apart from the award of Rs. 64,930/- towards loss of income due to permanent disability, Rs. 1,76,526/- towards medical bills and Rs.1425/- towards loss of income during laid down period, this Court finds it appropriate to award Rs. 14,400 towards the conveyance expenses as pleaded and proved by producing documents Ex. P-66 to Ex. P-73, Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of amenities in life, Rs. 20,000/- towards pains and suffering, Rs. 10,000/- for special diet and Rs. 5,000/- towards the attendant. 11. Now, the appellant claimant shall be entitled for a total sum of Rs. 3,12,281/- (i.e. Rs. 1,76,526 + 1,425 + 64,930 + 14,400 + 20,000 + 20,000 + 10,000 + 5,000) as awarded by this Court. This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 12. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellant as compensation pursuant to impugned award shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/-------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey