1 2025:CGHC:31613 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1273 of 2019 1 - Nand Kumar Sagarvanshi S/o Late Bisahu Ram Aged About 55 Years R/o Amapara, Ward No. 12, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---(Claimant), --- Appellant versus 1 - Sanjay Gupta S/o Ghanshyam Gupta Aged About 47 Years R/o Shivpara, Near Shiv Mandir, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---(Driver Of Offending Motorcycle C.G.07, A-9311) 2 - Smt. Prem Lata Rathi W/o G. S. Rathi R/o Rathi Enterprises, G.E. Road, Ganjpara, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---(Owner Of Offending Motorcycle C.G.07, A-9311), 3 - United India Insurance Company Limited Paras Complex, Near S.B.I., Gurudwara Station Road, Durg, Through The Branch Office In front Of Project Auto, G.E. Road, Power House Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- (Insurer Of Offending Motorcycle C.G.07, A-9311). …….Respondents. _____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.16 11:18:11 +0530 2 09/07/2025 1. Claimant/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District – Durg (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 17.05.2019 passed in Claim Case No.126/2015 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.1,79,200/- as compensation in an injury case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that a claim application U/s.166 of the Act, 1988 was filed by the claimant/injured seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- against the injury suffered by him in the road accident pleading therein that on 12.05.2015, while the claimant/applicant was standing in front of Welcome Kiraya Bhandar, Harnabandha, Durg, the non-applicant No.1, driving the motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.-07A-9311 in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the applicant/injured, causing an accident. As a result, applicant suffered fracture in his left leg and has suffered permanent disability. It was further pleaded that at the time of the accident, applicant was 55 years old and employed as a driver, earning a monthly income of Rs. 10,000/-. Due to the injuries suffered, he is no longer able to perform his work as he did prior to the incident 3. Non-applicant No.1 and 2 filed their reply to the application denying the averments made therein. It was pleaded that accident occurred due to self negligence of the applicant/claimant himself. On the date of accident, offending vehicle was duly insured with non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company. Non-applicant No.3 also filed its reply and 3 denied the claim averments. It was pleaded that accident occurred to due self negligence of the applicant himself. Claim application was filed exaggerating the amount of compensation. At the time of accident, non-applicant No.1 was not having valid and effective driving license and the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of the conditions of insurance policy without any valid permit. 4. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.1,79,200/- fastening the liability upon the non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding less amount of compensation. He submits that though the multiple grounds have been raised in this appeal, however, he is pressing this appeal on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded amount of compensation under the head of loss of future prospects. He submits that appellant suffered 12% permanent disability resulting in loss of earning capacity to the extent of 10% and therefore, for awarding just amount of compensation, the future prospects is also to be added in the assessed income as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sidram Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439 and in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation under all heads for which 4 claimant is entitled for. Hence, there is no ground for enhancement of amount of compensation. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of claim case. 8. Learned counsel for appellant has raised the sole grounds with respect to non-award of compensation under the head of loss of future prospects. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sidram Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439 has settled the law with respect to grant of future prospects in case of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor accident. As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, in case where victim of road accident is age group between 55 to 60 years on the date of accident, 10% of assessed income is to be added towards future prospects. 10. In the case at hand, at the time of incident, the injured was 55 years of age, therefore, considering the above decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the age of the deceased to be between 55 to 60 years I find it appropriate to enhance the income of injured by 10% towards future prospects. It is ordered accordingly. 11. The learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the injured/applicant as Rs.6,000/- per month, hence, after addition of 10% towards future prospects, the monthly income of the injured comes to Rs.6,600/- accordingly annual income works out to Rs.79,200/-. 5 12. The injured was 55 years of age at the time of accident, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 9. Accordingly, after applying the multiplier of 9, the total income of the injured comes to Rs.7,12,800/- 13. The loss of earning due to disability suffered by the appellant is held to the extent of 10%, therefore, compensation has to be calculated in that proportion and accordingly total compensation under the head of loss of earning works out to Rs.71,280/-. 14. The award of Rs.31,400/- towards medical expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards conveyance expenses, Rs.12,000/- towards attendant, Rs.36,000/- towards loss of income during laid down period, Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities in life and Rs.10,000/- towards future medical expenses is not disputed by the counsel for the parties, hence, they are affirmed. Looking to the nature of injury suffered and period of treatment, the amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded towards special diet is required to enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. 15. On the basis of above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :- S.N. Head Amount. (Rs) 1. Loss of earning : 71,280.00 2. For medical expenses : 31,400.00 3. For conveyance : 5,000.00 4. For special diet : 10,000.00 6 5. For attendant : 12,000.00 6. For loss of income during laid down period : 36,000.00 7. For pain and suffering : 5,000.00 8. For loss of amenities in life : 10,000.00 9. For future medical expenses : 10,000.00 Total Compensation : 1,90,680.00 16. Accordingly the appeal is allowed in part. The applicant/injured shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,90,680.00. Any amount paid to the appellant/injured as compensation as per award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. The impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated herein above above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram