1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1307 of 2019 1 - Ramjeet S/o Bhaiyalal Aged About 30 Years R/o Juna Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line, Tahsil And District (Revenue And Civil) Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Sajid Ansari S/o Samim Ansari Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Sonawani Girideeh Dafai Domenhil, Police Station - Chirmiri, District (Revenue And Civil) Korba Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Bolero No. C.G. 12-A.H./1177)., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ajaharruddin S/o Ullauddin Aged About 27 Years Caste - Muslim, R/o Village Sonawani Girideeh Dafai, Domenhil, Police Station Chirmiri, District (Revenue And Civil) Korba Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Bolero No. C.G. -12-A.H./1177)., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Oriantal Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Office, Rama Trade Centre, Near Old Bus Stand Bilaspur, Tahsil And District (Revenue And Civil) Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Bolero No. C.G. -12-A.H./1177), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 02/09/2025 Heard on IA No. 01 – application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963. 2 2. Though opposed but for the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal barred by 211 days is hereby condoned. 3. With the consent of the parties heard finally. 4. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) has been filed challenging the award dated 12.09.2018 passed in MACT No. 230/2016 by the 6th Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, CG by which against a claim of Rs. 10,70,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,26,249/- on account of injuries sustained by the appellant in an accident that took place on 31.07.2015 by the offending vehicle Bolero bearing registration No. CG 12 A.H. /1177 driven by respondent No. 1 / driver, owned by respondent No. 2 / owner and insured with the respondent No. 3 / insurance company. 5. As per pleadings of the claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, the appellant/claimant has suffered severe injuries including permanent disablement to the tune of 42% and was a mason and earning Rs. 8000-9000 per month. Therefore, the above stated compensation was claimed. 6. The claim application was resisted by the respondents on various grounds and denied the averments of the claim application and respondent No. 3 / insurance company pleaded that there is violations of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The learned Tribunal framed issues on the basis of the pleadings and decided the same in favour of the claimant and awarded the above stated compensation. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant / claimant vehemently argued that the finding of monthly income of the appellant/claimant to Rs.3432/- is absolutely unjustified and income of the claimant ought to have been considered at Rs. 8000- 9000 per month. Apart from this, he submits that compensation and on other admissible heads is also on the lower side and it may be enhanced suitably. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 & 3 supports the impugned award and submits that the appellant/claimant could not prove the income therefore, the 3 finding with regard to income and award of compensation and all other admissible head does not require any interference by this Court therefore, appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record. 10. The Tribunal found the monthly income of the appellant/claimant to Rs.3432/-. The date of accident on 31.07.2015. The appellant/claimant was aged about 30 years and according to him he was a mason and earning Rs. 8000-9000 per month. Though no documentary evidence on record is available but when person is working in unorganized sector, he / she may not have necessary documents to prove the income. Taking into consideration the evidence available on record; date of accident; age of the appellant/claimant; minimum wages; this Court is inclined to take the notional income of the appellant/claimant to Rs. 6000/- per month. The loss of 42% earning capacity has not been challenged by the insurance company therefore, this Court is also approved the finding the loss of earning capacity of the 42% and therefore, recomputes the compensation in the following manners:- S. No. Description Amount 1. Monthly income 6000/- 2. 40% Future prospect 2400 3. Total Monthly Income (6000+2400)) 8400/- 4. Total Yearly Income (8400x12) 100800/- 5. Claimant 42% disablement 42336/- 6. Loss of income 42336x16 677376/- 7. Loss of income during treatment 18000/- 8. Attendant 5000/- 9. Transportation 3000/- 10. Nutritional diet 5000/- 11. Pain and Suffering 15000/- 12. Medical Treatment 1397/- Total 724773/- 4 11. Since learned Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs. 426249/-, the enhanced amount which he now is entitled to get comes to Rs. 2,98,524/-. Order accordingly. 12. The amount of compensation shall be paid by the insurance company / respondent No. 3 within a period of 60 days with 6% interest, from the date of appeal on 10.07.2019. 13. On such deposit being made, out of the amount worked out by way of enhancement, let 75% thereof be invested in some nationalized bank for a period of two years and the remainder be paid to appellant / claimant through bank transaction. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part with the modification as indicated above. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan