1 2025:CGHC:45461 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1095 of 2020 1 - Kanhiya Lal Verma S/o Sadhu Ram Verma Aged About 45 Years Present Address Indra Nagar, Hathkhoj Ward No. 01, Bhilai Tahsil And District Durg Permanent Address Village Navagaron, Police Station Amleshwar, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Pushkar Singh Sahu S/o Tejram Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Dundera, Police Station Utai, District Durg Chhattisgarh .......(Driver Of Offending Vehicle Cg-07, B. L. - 9981), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Amit Maheshwari S/o Kishore Kumar Maheshwari R/o Flat No. 41/1, Street No. 7/b, Maitri Nagar, Risali, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh .......(Owner Of Offending Vehicle Cg-07, B. L. -9981), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Parakh Bhavan, Station Road, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh .......(Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Cg-07, B. L. -9981), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Shri Deepak Gupta, Advocate Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.09.09 16:38:32 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 04/09/2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 14.2.2020 passed by 8th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No.344 of 2019. 2. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs.33,00,000, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.4,22,100 in favour of the appellant/claimant on account of the injuries and permanent disablement sustained by him in an accident occurred on 22.1.2019 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.CG 07 BL 9981 by respondent No.1 owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. 3. A claim application under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by the appellant/claimant inter alia pleading that on account of the said accident, he sustained severe injuries including multiple fractures and permanent disablement and spent a huge amount for his treatment and thereby claimed the above stated compensation. 4. The claim application was resisted by the respondents including the insurance company on various grounds taking a plea of violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 3 5. Learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and decided the same in favour of the appellant/claimant and awarded the above stated compensation holding the loss of earning capacity to the tune of 14% and thereby awarded a compensation in the following manner: “35. इस प्रकार उपरोक्त वि ेचना से आ ेदक विनम्न वि रण अनुसार क्षतिपूर्ति प्राप्त करने का अतिकारी है- 1. ईलाज का खच% 1,59,700 2. यात्रा व्यय 4,000 3. वि शेष खान-पान 5,000 4. परिरचारक 12,000 5. ईलाज के दौरान उपा%जन की क्षति 45,000 6. भवि ष्य में उपाज%न की क्षति 1,76,400 7. शारीरिरक मानसिसक दुख ए ं पीड़ा के लिलए 10,000 8. सुवि ाओं की हाविन के लिलए 5,000 9. भवि ष्य के ईलाज / बाहरी द ाईयां का खच% 5,000 कु ल योग ₹ 4,22,100 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that income of the appellant is taken to Rs.7,500 which is absolutely on lower side. Future prospects is not added and compensation on all other admissible heads is also on lower side. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 supports the impugned award and submits that just compensation has been awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 8. Taking into consideration the submission made by learned 4 counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available it appears that income of Rs.7,500 of the appellant appears to be on lower side looking to the date of accident and nature of his job. Apart from this, this Court finds that under other relevant heads, the compensation granted appears to be meager. 9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice, to make the compensation just, this Court awards further sum of Rs.1,00,000 to the appellant/claimant to be paid by respondent No.3 within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. The appeal, thus, is partly allowed to the extent shown above. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Gopal