1 2025:CGHC:16483 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 119 of 2017 1 - Lalbabu Soni S/o Late Ruplal Soni, Aged About 50 Years R/o Ramnagar, Near Sani Mandir, Indra Chowk, Post Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ................Claimant/ ... Appellant versus 1 - Nandlal Rajak S/o Late Makku Lal Rajak, Aged About 56 Years R/o Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Permanent Address- Magarpara, Near Doune Atta Chakki, Police Station Civil Lines Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ................Driver Of Vehicle Dumpher No. B S P 235, Engine No. 25360855, Frame No. E E M L B H - 3521301, 2 - Bhilai Steel Plant through its General Manager Secretary, Plot Garage Bhatti, Tahsil and District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ................Owner of Vehicle Dumper No. B S P 235, Engine No. 25360855, Frame No. E E M L B H - 3521301, . ... Respondents For the appellants : Mr. Prakash Kumar Goswami, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate with Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate. A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 08/04/2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed challenging the award dated 27th September, 2016 passed by the VI Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, Chhattisgarh, in Claim Case No.35 of 2013 By the impugned award, the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.2,64,332/-, out of which, as stated by Respondent no.2, Rs.1,79,814/- was paid by Employees State Insurance Corporation for the damages caused in the accident. 2. As per the pleadings of the claim application filed under Sections 166 & 140 of the MV Act, the appellant being a contract worker of Maruti Construction was going towards Cocoban on his motorcycle to work in Bhilai Steel Plant. At that time, respondent no.1 who was driving the offending vehicle i.e., Dumper bearing No.BSP 235, in rash and negligent manner came from the direction of Cocoban and hit the appellant’s motorcycle due to which the appellant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately admitted in Sector-09 BSP Hospital, Bhilai from where he was shifted to Kalra Nursing Home , Raipur for better treatment. It is stated that due to the said accident, the applicant has suffered permanent disability. He filed claim application seeking a total compensation of Rs.24,50,000/- on various heads for 3 the damages caused to him in the said accident. 3. The learned claims Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence and documents brought on record granted a total compensation of Rs. 2,64,332/- on various heads as under : 01 Treatment expenses 1,38,379 02 Transport expenses 12,803 03 For staying in lodge at Vellore Hospital 2,600 04 Nutrient Food 5,000/- 05 Attendant charges 3,750/- 06 Loss of future income 46,800/- 07 Casual expenses awarded due to accident 5,000/- 08 Future medical treatment expenses 50,000/- Total Rs. 2,64,332/- 4. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has erred in considering the 5% disability and the claim amount was considered on the basis of 5% disability whereas the disability certificate issued by the District Hospital Durg (Ex.P-76) shows that the appellant has sustained 35% disability. He further submits that the appellant pleaded his income as Rs.30,000/-, but the learned Claims Tribunal has scantily taken it to be Rs.6000/- per month (@ Rs.200/- per day) and thus the compensation awarded by the tribunal is not just and proper. He, therefore, prays that this appeal may be allowed and amount of compensation may be enhanced suitably. 5. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 supports the award and submits that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has granted just compensation which needs no interference. 4 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. As regards permanent disability, the appellant produced certificate issued by Dr. Akhilesh Yadav, Senior Medical Officer of District Hospital Durg who is examined as P.W.3. He states that appellant was medically examined on 03.05.2014 and thereafter a certificate of 35% permanent disability was issued by Ex.P-76. In cross examination, this witness has stated that he has not treated the patient and he never came to him before or after 03.05.2014. He further states that Ex.P-76 is valid for three years. He further categorically admits that Ex.P-76 does not have a detailed description of the assessment of the disability of the whole body and it is mentioned on the back of the OPD slip (Ex.P-77). He further admits that the date of accident written in the OPD slip is written as per the appellant’s statement and the documents. This witness further admits that the criteria on the basis of which the percentage of disability has been calculated is not mentioned in Ex.P- 76 & P-77. He further states that the disability suffered by the appellant may increase or decrease in future and he also admits that the applicant was not given any unfit certificate for work. 8. On the basis of statement of the doctor (P.W.3), the Tribunal has observed that a single doctor has issued Ex.P-3 regarding disability of appellant where the appellant is shown to have suffered serious injury but the doctor who treated him has not made any statement about the appellants’ disability and as per the doctor who issued the certificate Ex.P-76 it was valid for three years and the disability suffered by the 5 appellant may increase or decrees in future, therefore, that the said disability certificate is temporary. In view of the evidence the doctor, the Tribunal felt it appropriate to hold that 5% disability has been caused as a result of injury instead of 35%. On perusal of the evidence of doctor (P.W.3), this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality warranting interference in the finding drawn by the trial Court regarding disability of the appellant. 9. On the basis of documents produced by the appellant, the tribunal has considered that as per the Ex.P-10 the appellant got his treatment done by staying admitted in Sector 9 hospital for a total period of 25 days from 18.12.2012 to 10.01.2013. So the Tribunal has rightly considered the Bills Ex.P-21 to Ex.P-48 and Ex.P-74 to 75 produced by the appellant and accordingly granted Rs.,1,38,379/- towards treatment expenses. The Tribunal has further granted transport expenses Rs.12,803/ as per Ex.P-49 to 65; Rs.2,600/- towards lodging expenses for staying at Vellore lodge; Rs.5000/- towards nutritious food, Rs.3750/- for attendant charges, which are found just and proper. 10. Further while computing the income of appellant the Tribunal took his income to be Rs.6000/- per month (Rs.72,000/- per year) and considering the age of appellant adopted the multiplier 13 and further considering 5% disability, worked out the future loss of income to be Rs.46,800 (Rs.72000 x 13 x 5/100). Thus under pecuniary loss, a total of Rs. 2,09,332/- (Rs.1,38,379 + 12,803 + 2,600 + 5,000 + 3,750 + 46,800) was granted. In addition, under non-pecuniary losses, the Tribunal has granted Rs.5000/- for physical pain and mental agony and 6 Rs. 50,000/- for future medical treatment, thereby, the total compensation was worked out to be Rs.2,64,332/- which cannot be said to be a meagre compensation. 11. However, it appears that no amount has been awarded for loss of income during treatment though the appellant was shown to have been admitted in Hospital for 25 days. Therefore, it would be appropriate to grant Rs.12,000/- on this count in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal and the total compensation payable to the appellant would be Rs.2,64,332 plus Rs.12,000/- = Rs.2,76,332/-. 12. Thus the total compensation is worked out to Rs.2,76,332/- from which after deduction of Rs. 2,64,332/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.12,000/- which shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of enhancement and till the date of its realisation. 13. At this stage, it is stated on behalf of respondent no.2 that an amount of Rs.1,79,814/- for treatment of appellant has already been paid through Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. In this regard, the order of the Tribunal is also there. In view of the above submission, after deducting the amount of 1,79,814/- already paid under ESI Act, the remaining sum, if not paid, may be paid to the appellant along with the enhanced amount. 14. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 15. The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimants in 7 writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of para-legal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area where the claimants reside. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge Rao