-1- 2025:CGHC:40809 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1208 of 2019 Govindlal Kewat S/o Bisahu Ram Kewat Aged About 25 Years R/o Village - Amlideah, Police Station - Kasdol, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Kholbehra Sahu S/o Panchuram Sahu Aged About 46 Years R/o Village - Chirra , Post Tundri Police Station - Bilaigarh District ( Revenue And Civil ) Balodabazar Chhattisgarh. ( Driver Of Metador 1109 C.G. 06 Am – 0778) 2 - Devendra Nayak S/o Chhatar Singh Nayak Aged About 40 Years Caste - Adharia R/o - Village And Post - Saraipali District (Revenue And Civil ) Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ( Owner Of Metador 1109 C.G. 06 Am - 0778) 3 - Narayan Prasad Sahu S/o Kalram Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village - Nawapara Police Station And Tehsil - Bilaigarh District ( Revenue And Civil ) Balodabazar Chhattisgarh. ( Special Power Of Attorney Holder Of Metador 1109 C.G. 06 Am - 0778) 4 - Branch Manager National Insurance Company Raipur, Madina Manzil Near Court, G.E. Road Raipur, District ( Revenue And Civil ) Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer Of Metador 1109 C.G. 06 Am - 0778) .. Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 to 3 : None appears though served For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.09.09 11:44:30 +0530 -2- 13/08/2025 1. Heard on IA No.1 which is an application for condonation of delay of 160 days in filing this appeal. 2. On due consideration, the application is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, appeal is heard finally at motion state. 4. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) is filed by appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar, CG. vide award dated 12.10.2018 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.54 of 2018. 5. As in this appeal claimant is seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal in injury case, date of accident, involvement of motorcycle driven by non-applicant No.1 owned by non-applicant No.2 and insured by non-applicant No.4 is not in dispute, liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon non- applicant No.4 /insurance company is also not in dispute, this Court is not dealing with facts as pleaded in claim application, reply to claim application and the facts as adverted by Claims Tribunal in its award disclosing facts of accidents. However, this Court is considering the submissions made by learned counsel for respective parties on enhancement of amount of compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the motor-vehicular -3- accident, appellant suffered multiple fracture over his person, however, learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards pains and suffering and Rs.5000/- towards special diet overlooking the documentary evidence submitted showing the nature of injury suffered by him, treatment taken in hospital at Raipur as inpatient for about 13 days. He also contended that Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation towards conveyance expenses, loss of income and attendant during period of treatment for which claimant is entitled for. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.4 Insurance Company submits that learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of pleading and evidence brought on record by respective parties has awarded just amount of compensation which does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has not made any submission with regard to compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- towards medical expenses to be erroneous or less than that of the expenses incurred and therefore finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal assessing compensation under head medical expenses of Rs.1,60,000/- is affirmed. 10. Claimant in support of pleadings made in the claim application has produced documents of his treatment in Ex.A-13 of Narayana Hospital, Raipur giving information to the concerned SHO of Police Station -4- wherein it is mentioned that Govindlal Kewat was admitted in hospital on 13.12.2017 and discharged on 25.12.2017.Other document in the letter head of Narayana Hospital at page No.52 of record is issued under signature of doctor. It mentions “Polytrauma injuries i.e. fracture of distal end of radius Rt. fracture of midshaft femur Rt., fracture of midshaft tibia Rt., fracture of lateral condyle femur”. 11. Aforementioned document available in record was issued under the signature of doctor who has evaluated the nature of injuries suffered by claimant in motor-vehicular accident. Injury suffered by claimant was grievous in nature . Further, at page No.61 of record, it mentions that lat condyle locking plate fixation with CC screw was also done, nailing of the tibia was done and locking of distal radius was also done. 12. In the aforementioned facts of case, in the opinion of this Court, compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal under head of Pains and Suffering is less and therefore it is enhanced to Rs.20,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- 13. Though the claimant has pleaded his income to be Rs.8,300/- per month by doing work of Credit Assistant with Vandana Sfurti Financial Ltd., however, said pleading could not be proved by producing admissible evidence. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, income of the claimant is to be assessed on notional basis keeping in mind the wages fixed, further the claimant to be educated person and therefore keeping in mind the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority, I find it appropriate to accept the income as pleaded by claimant as -5- Rs.8300/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 14. Claims Tribunal has not awarded amount of compensation under head of loss of income during period of treatment. Looking to the nature of injury i.e. multiple fracture over distal end of radius midshaft femur, midshaft tibia and lateral condyle femur, in the opinion of this Court, even after discharge from hospital, claimant may not be able to work during treatment for a period of 3 months. Therefore, I find it appropriate to award Rs.24,900/- (8300 x 3) for loss of income of 3 months . It is ordered accordingly. 15. Considering the fact that claimant is resident of village Amlidih, P.S- Kasdol, Tahsil-Balodbazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara and took treatment from Hospital at Raipur, I find it appropriate to award Rs.8,000/- towards conveyance expenses. Further considering the nature of treatment and injury, amount of compensation of Rs.5,000/- awarded towards special diet is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. 16. Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards grievous injury and, therefore, I find it appropriate to award Rs.20,000/- towards grievous injury keeping in mind that the nature of injury which the claimant suffered may have its impact in his future life. Looking to the facts of case, compensation of Rs.8,000/- is also awarded under the head attendant . 17. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I find it appropriate to re- compute the amount of compensation as under:- -6- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. Medical Expenses : Rs. 1,60,000 2. Loss of Income for 3 months (8300 x 3) : (+) Rs. 24,900 3. Pains and Suffering : (+) Rs. 20,000 4. Special Diet : (+) Rs. 10,000 5. Conveyance Expenses : (+) Rs. 8,000 6. Grievous injury : (+) Rs. 20,000 7. Attendant : (+) Rs. 8,000 Total compensation : Rs. 2,50,900 18. Now the appellant/claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs. 2,50,900/- instead of Rs.1,75,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 19. 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 the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 20. 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