-1- 2025:CGHC:34890 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 559 of 2021 Vishnudutt Pathak S/o Late Madan Mohan Pathak Aged About 42 Years Occupation Agriculture And Business R/o Village Missionpara, Bagra, P.S. Vijaynagar, P.S. Ramanujganj District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - United India Insurance Company Ltd Branch Office Brahmaroad, Near Kumkum Hotel, Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Anil Kumar Keshri @ Chhotu S/o Late Ramjilal Keshri Aged About 39 Years Occupation Driver And Owner, R/o Ashrampara, Bagra, P.S. Vijaynagar, P.S. Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. (Driver Cum Owner) ... Respondent(s) ________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Resp. No.2 : None appears though served. _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 22 /07/2025 Heard. 1. This is claimant’s appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.08.05 10:17:20 +0530 -2- Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ramanujganj (CG) vide award dated 24.02.2021 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.56 of 2018. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellant/claimant filed an application under Sections 166 of the Act of 1988 before the learned Claims Tribunal pleading therein that on 05/01/2018, when applicant was going from village Bagra to village Lodha on his motorcycle at about 02:25 pm, non-applicant No.2/ driver of Bolero vehicle No. CG-15, B-0809, driving it rashly and negligently, dashed applicant's motorcycle with great force due to which the applicant suffered serious injuries on his right leg, head, forehead and right elbow and arm. After his primary treatment, he was referred to Daltenganj, Jharkhand for better treatment. Thereafter on 05/01/2018 he was taken to Orchid Medical Center Ranchi for better treatment. He remained admitted in the hospital from 06/01/2018 to 26/01/2018. Before the accident, applicant was doing agricultural work and business from which he was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. Applicant has claimed for total compensation of Rs. 8.91,121/- (eight lakh fifty one thousand one hundred twenty one) from the non-applicants under all heads. 3. Non-applicant No.1/insurance company by filing its written statement denied the pleadings made in the claim application and further pleaded inter alia that on the date of the accident, non-applicant No.2 did not have a valid and effective driving license. The accident occurred due to applicant’s own negligence. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to -3- any compensation and the claim application is not maintainable. 4. Opposing the claim of the applicant, non-applicant No.2 pleaded in his reply that no accident has occurred with his vehicle. A false report was lodged against him. Applicant did not suffer any injury from the vehicle of the non-applicant No.2. As on the date of accident vehicle- Bolero was insured with non-applicant No.1/Insurance Company, liability to satisfy the amount of compensation, if any, would be of non-applicant No.1. 5. 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.2 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which applicant -Vishnudutta Pathak suffered grievous injuries. Recording a finding that brach of conditions of insurance policy was not found proved, held non-applicants liable to pay amount of compensation, awarded total compensation of Rs.5,06488/- . 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant made twofold submission for enhancing the amount of compensation. His first submission is that learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the appellant on lower side and second, that though the appellant suffered grievous injury over his person, took treatment in hospital as inpatient from 06.01.2018 till 26.01.2018, however, learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded sufficient amount of compensation under head of ‘loss of income’, ‘pains and suffering’ . 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and submits that -4- amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the record of claim case. 9. So far as assessing income of the appellant/claimant is concerned in absence of any specific evidence led by the appellant/claimant to prove nature of occupation and income, this Court finds it appropriate to take help of the Notification issued by the Commissioner-cum- Competent Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. In the Notification for C zone/area’ monthly income for ‘unskilled labourer’ for the period from 01.10.2017 to 31.03.2018, has been fixed as Rs.7930/- per month. Hence, looking to the date of accident i.e. 05.01.2018, income of the appellant/claimant is assessed as Rs.7930/- per month. 10. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellant with regard to not awarding proper compensation under the head – ‘loss of income’ and ‘pains and suffering’ is concerned, perusal of the record would show that though discharge card/ discharge summary is not exhibited by the claimant before learned Claims Tribunal to prove the nature of injuries suffered by him, however, it is forming part of record at page No.66 of the claim case. For award of compensation, if for any reason, discharge summary/discharge card could not be exhibited in the claim proceedings, but available in record, it may be looked into by the Court to award just compensation if it is appearing to be genuine. From perusal of final/provisional diagnosis, treatment given and advice given by doctor on discharge, mentioned in un-exhibited discharge -5- card, it is apparent that appellant/claimant suffered grievous injury over his person. Due to nature of injuries suffered by claimant, after discharge from hospital, he might not have started work with which he was earlier engaged prior to date of accident. Accordingly, looking to the facts of the case, nature of injuries suffered by claimant, appellant/claimant is entitle to get compensation under ‘loss of income’ for 3 months which comes to Rs.23,790/- (7930 x 3). 11. The claimant produced sufficient evidence to establish that, as a result of accident, he suffered considerable physical pain and emotional distress. Having examined the nature and extent of the injuries, duration of recovery, and the impact on the claimant’s daily activities, the court finds it appropriate to award Rs.30,000/- under the head ‘pains and suffering’. 12.For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. Medical expenses : Rs. 4,49,788 2. Pains and suffering : (+) Rs. 30,000 3. Conveyance/Transportation expenses : (+) Rs. 12,500 4. Special Diet : (+) Rs. 10,000 5. Attendant : (+) Rs. 4,200 6. Loss of Income : (+) Rs. 23,790 Total compensation : Rs. 5,30,278 13.Now the appellant/claimant is awarded total compensation of -6- Rs.5,30,278/- instead of Rs.5,06,488/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 14. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimant shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Rest of conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.f 2 15. Appeal is accordingly allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- Sd/-/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen