-1- 2025:CGHC:26117 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1173 of 2019 Alka Sharma D/o (wrongly mentioned as S/o) Radheshyam Sharma Aged About 28 Years R/o 4/3 Pandit Deendayal Puram, New Khursipar, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh At Present R/o C/o Dr. Kamal Prasad Awasthi, Tikarapara, Kanker, P.S. And Tahsil Kanker, District- North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh..............(Claimant) ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Mukesh Netam S/o Sangram Netam Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Choriya, Police Chowki Dudhawa, At Present Garhpichwadi, P.S. And Tahsil Kanker, District- Noth Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh..............(Driver Of Offending Vehicle Truck C.G. 09, B- 0634) 2 - Abdul Karim Khan S/o Haji Yusuf Bhai R/o Village Singarbhat, Tahsil And District- Kanker, Chhattisgarh...............(Owner Of Offending Vehicle Truck Cg-09, B-0634) 3 - The National Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, Infront Of R.M.S. Office, Upper Side Of Central Bank, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh, .............(Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Truck C.G.-09, B- 06340), District ... Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Praveen Kumar Dhurandhar, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 & 2 : None appears though served For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.07.03 10:23:39 +0530 -2- 20/06/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally. 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 Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (FTC) Uttar Bastar- Kanker (C.G) vide award dated 30.03.2019 passed in Claim Case No. 65 of 2017. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellant/claimant filed a claim application under Section 166 and 140 of the Act of 1988 before the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (FTC), Uttar Bastar Kanker pleading therein that on 31.01.2017, when applicant was returning home from school on her scooty no. CG/07-LD/6952 at about 4:30 p.m., non-applicant No.1 driving truck no. CG/09B/0634 (hereinafter referred as offending vehicle) rashly and negligently, dashed against applicant's scooty from behind, causing an accident, as a result of which, applicant suffered serious injuries on her right leg, head, face and other parts of the body. In the said accident, applicant's leg was completely damaged, and she was immediately admitted to Government Hospital, Kanker for treatment, where she was given first aid treatment. Thereafter, she was admitted to Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital, Bhilai. Thereafter, she was admitted to Narayana Hospital, Raipur from 01.02.2017 to 05.02.2017 and thereafter to Kalda Hospital, Raipur from 05.02.2017 to 02.04.2017 for treatment. During treatment, toe of the applicant below the ankle was amputated through surgery. About 15 lakh rupees -3- were spent on her treatment. The appellant/claimant prayed for total compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- from the non-applicants under different heads. 4. Non-applicants No. 1 & 2 by filing their written statement have denied almost all the pleadings made in the claim application and stated that applicant herself, while driving her scooter carelessly, dashed the rear part of the truck, fell down and got injured. On the date of the incident, non-applicant No.1 had a valid and effective driving license and the truck was fully insured with non-applicant No.3/insurance company. Therefore, claim application against non-applicants No. 1 & 2 be dismissed. 5. Non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company in its written statement specifically pleaded that on the date of the accident, driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving license, the vehicle was being plied without a valid and effective permit, fitness which is in violation of the conditions of insurance policy, as such, insurance company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. In alternative, it is also pleaded that there was contributory negligence of the claimant. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which applicant/claimant sustained grievous injuries. Plea of contributory negligence raised by non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company is not found to be proved by the Tribunal. Recording a finding that breach of -4- the conditions of insurance policy was not found proved, learned Claims Tribunal held non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company liable to pay amount of compensation to claimants, computed and awarded total compensation of 17,18,337/-. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager sum of compensation. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded the amount of compensation towards ‘loss of income’ during the period of treatment and further, compensation towards ‘loss of amenities of life’ as the claimant on the date of accident was an unmarried lady. Looking to the nature of injury, the amputation of his leg from ankle may also affect her marriage prospects and, therefore, she is also entitled for compensation on the said head. Amount of compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side. Hence, the amount of compensation may be accordingly enhanced. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3/insurance company submits that learned Tribunal upon appreciation of evidence has awarded compensation on almost all heads for which the claimant is entitled. The amount of compensation is just and proper, hence, it does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of claims case. 10. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidence has recorded the period of treatment as inpatient from Narayana Hospital Raipur from 01.02.2017 till 05.02.2017, Kalda Hospital Raipur from -5- 05.02.2017 till 02.04.2017. She was also admitted in Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital Bhilai prior to date of admission in Narayana Hospital Raipur which is apparent from Ex.P-90. Appellant/claimant suffered amputation of right leg from ankle. The date of accident is 31.01.2017 and, hence, from the period of admission in the hospital it is appearing that appellant took treatment as inpatient for more than 2 months. Looking to the nature of injury suffered on different parts of body, the appellant thereafter may have taken bed rest in her house for about further 2 months. There is no evidence on record to show as to when appellant/claimant joined her service back. 11. In the aforementioned facts of the case, considering the the nature of injuries, I find it appropriate to hold that appellant could not able to perform her work for about 4 months. It is not in dispute that appellant claimant was working as Shikshakarmi. As per certificate Ex.P-170 issued by the Block Education Officer, Block- Kanker, there is clear mention that Shikshak Panchayat are not entitled for medical allowance/medical claim. 12. There is no evidence as to whether the appellant/claimant/Panchayat Shikshak is entitled for the medical leave or earned leave. Be that as it may, even if the applicant/claimant is entitled for medical leave or earned leave then also the leave period of 4 months, as stated above, could have been utilized by appellant/claimant who is Panchayat Shikshak for treatment of any other medical ailment, if any, during her service period or the earned leave for any other purpose to meet the -6- exigency which may arise in future. Therefore in the opinion of this Court appellant/claimant will be entitled for compensation towards loss of income for that period. The Block Education Officer has certified monthly salary of the appellant as Rs.15,749/- per month and, accordingly, compensation towards for loss of income during laid down period would come to Rs.62,996/- (15749 x 4). 13. Learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation towards loss of amenities of life. Admittedly, the claimant has suffered amputation of leg from ankle. She is stated to be unmarried lady which will hamper her marital prospects also and with the aforementioned disability due to amputation of her right leg from ankle she may not enjoy the life like an ordinary female and, therefore, I find it appropriate to award Rs.1 lakh as consolidated amount towards ‘loss of amenities of life’ and ‘loss of marital prospects’. It is ordered accordingly. 14. 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. 14,68,337 2. Conveyance Charges : (+) Rs. 50,000 3. Special Diet : (+) Rs. 50,000 4. Physical pain and mental agony : (+) Rs. 1,00,000 5. Attendant : (+) Rs. 50,000 6. Loss of income for 4 months 15749 x 4 = 62996 : (+) Rs. 62,996 7. Loss of amenities of life and loss of marital prospects : (+) Rs. 1,00,000 Total compensation : 18,81,333 -7- 15.Now the appellant/claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs.18,81,333/- instead of Rs.17,18,337/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 16.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. 17.In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein above. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen