1 2025:CGHC:16948 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MAC No. 1089 of 2020 • Saraswati Banjare W/o Shri Aasharam Banjre Aged About 30 Years Resident of Village Barda, Chowki Lawan, P.W. Kasdol District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant/claimant VERSUS 1. Deepak Jaan S/o Navrang Jaan Aged About 28 Years Resident of Indira Colony, Baloda Bazar , Police Station City Kotwali Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Driver of The Offending Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04 JC 6244). 2. Rajeev Lochan Shukla S/o Late Shri Ramesh Shukla Aged About 49 Years Resident of Kamal Colony, Baloda Bazar, Police Station City Kotwali Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Owner of the Offending Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04 JC 6244). 3. New India Insurance Company Ltd. Local Branch Ambedkar Chowk Deen Dayal Agrawal Complex , Upper of Central Bank of India Baloda Bazar District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of the Offending Bearing Registration No. C.G. 04 JC 6244). ----Respondents For Appellant : Ms. Ritika Verma, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 11/04/2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 23.01.2020 passed by Learned Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar, District Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case no. 07/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 3,22,641/- as compensation in injury case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 05.07.2017, at about 02:30 pm, when appellant-Saraswati Banjare was going from Balodabazar to her native village Barda in an auto ricksaw vehicle No. CG 22-2902 along with other villagers, at that relevant time, when they reached at drainage channel bridge ahead of village Bitkuli, Resp. No. 1/ driver of the Truck bearing number CG 04 JC 6244, driving the truck rashly and negligently, hit the autoricksaw from its behind and caused an accident. In the said accident, appellant and others suffered grievous injuries. Appellant was brought to Balodabazar by 108 Govt. Ambulance service, thereafter she got admitted at Narayana Hospital, Raipur. The Accident was reported at police station Balodabazar, based on which a crime for alleged offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC was registered against non-applicant No. 1. 3. Appellant filed an application under Section 166 and 140 of the Act of 1988 seeking ₹ 13,25,000/- as total compensation pleading therein that on the date of accident she was an able bodied person doing the work of labourer. Due to injuries suffered by her in the aforementioned accident her face has been disfigured causing pain in front part of forehead and she is not able to do her work to earn livelihood. 4. Non-applicants No. 1 & 2/ driver and the owner filed reply to the claim application denying all the adverse pleadings made therein, it is further pleaded that the non-applicant No. 1 has not committed any kind of negligence in driving the truck on the date of accident. He was driving his vehicle carefully and also having a valid driving license. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the auto driver himself. The 3 truck was insured with Respondent No. 3/ New India Insurance Company and therefore the liability of compensation, if any, would be of the insurance company and pleaded for dismissal of the claim application filed by appellant against them. 5. Non-applicant 3/ Insurance Company submitted reply to claim application, denying the adverse pleadings made therein, it was further pleaded that on the date of the accident, the truck was being driven in violation of the conditions of insurance policy as non-applicant No. 1/ driver was not having a valid and effective driving license to drive the truck, the truck was being plied without fitness and permit, hence the insurance company is not liable for paying any compensation and pleaded that the claim application filed against it be dismissed. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that appellant suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by non-applicant 1/ driver. Breach of policy conditions, contributory negligence was not found to be proved. Tribunal upon assessing income of appellant as ₹ 7,500/- per month calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 3,22,641/- as total compensation with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application. 7. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre sum of compensation without properly appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record. She submits that in the aforesaid accident appellant suffered serious head and face injuries for which she was admitted in Narayana Hospital, Raipur from 05.07.2017 to 28.07.2017. Due to the injuries, face of appellant has been disfigured and the doctor has advised her to undergo plastic 4 surgery. She was admitted in the hospital for about 22 days and about five to six lakhs rupees have been spent on her treatment. The appellant has suffered loss of income and also the future income growth. She submits that apart from medical bills Tribunal awarded an amount of ₹ 7,500/- for loss of income for a period of one month which is erroneous as the appellant was not able to earn his livelihood for more than a month due to the grievous injuries. Apart from it, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of ₹ 50,000/- on the heads of pain and sufferings, ₹ 5,000/- for special diet which are on lower side, looking to the documents placed on record and not awarded any amount towards attendant. She submits that the amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellant and further submits that the amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper in the facts of the case, which does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record of claim case. 10. Perusal of record would show that the date of accident is 05.07.2017. After the accident, appellant took treatment as in-patient from 05.07.2017 to 28.07.2017 at Narayana Hospital, Raipur which is evident from medical prescription, medical report and medical bills from Ext. P-27 to P-31, Ext. P-40, P-41, Ext. P-52 to P-54 and Ext. P-61 & P-65, from which it is also apparent that the appellant has suffered multiple injuries over her face and head in a road traffic accident. Learned Claims Tribunal has also considered the nature of injuries 5 suffered by the appellant, however, the Tribunal had only considered loss of income for one month without considering that the appellant- injured was doing the work of labourer to earn her livelihood and looking to the nature of injury and continuous treatment appellant might not have worked for about three months. Therefore, in the facts of the case where the appellant has taken treatment from 05.07.2017 to 22.07.2017, looking to the nature of injuries and occupation, she is entitled for compensation towards loss of income during the laid down period for 03 months instead of 01 month as assessed by Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. 11. Claims Tribunal considering the medical bills and other medical documents brought on record by the appellant from Ext. P-32 to P-39, Ext. P-42 to P-51, Ext. P-55 to P-64 and Ext. P-66 to P-114 has awarded an amount of ₹ 2,58,641/- and ₹ 1500/- as per Ext. P-117 & 118 towards medical expenses. Tribunal has also awarded amount of compensation on other heads ie., ₹ 50,000/- towards pain and sufferings which cannot be said to be on lower side. Tribunal has correctly awarded compensation on above heads. However, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal of ₹ 5,000/- towards special diet is on lower side, and not awarded any amount towards attendant, in the opinion of this Court in the facts of the case where this court has considered that the appellant could not able to do her work for a period of three months, therefore, the amount of compensation awarded towards special diet is enhanced to ₹ 10,000/- instead of ₹ 5,000/- and further appellant is entitled for ₹ 5,000/- towards attendant cost. Appellant who suffered disfiguration of face is also entitled for compensation of ₹ 25,000/- towards grievous injury and disfiguration. 6 12. Now the appellant-claimant shall be entitled for ₹ 3,72,641/- [₹ 22,500 (₹ 7500x3) + ₹ 2,58,641 + ₹ 1,500 + ₹ 50,000 + ₹ 10,000 + ₹ 5,000+ ₹ 25,000] as total compensation instead of ₹ 3,22,641/- awarded by learned claims Tribunal. Aforesaid amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount paid to appellant-claimant pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 13. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn