1 2025:CGHC:25587 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1101 of 2020 1. Punauram Mirjha S/o Shri Sukdev Ram Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Sukhrikala, Post Ghota, Tehsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant/claimant versus 1. Latesh Kumar Sahu @ Lakesh S/o Shri Kriparam Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Bade Purda, Post Bori, Tehsil Dhamdha, Disttrict Drug, Chhattisgarh. 2. United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Branch Manager, Adress- Tara Complex, G.E. /road, Power House Bhialai, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Utsav Mahishwar, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 19/6/2025 1. Appellant-claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by learned 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 30.1.2020 in Claim Case No.166/2019. 2 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.6,50,000/- under various heads, pleading that he suffered grievous injuries including amputation of four fingers of right leg, in a road occident which occurred on 18.1.2019 at about 5:00 p.m. in the evening, opposite Primary School Main Road, Village Semariya due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Suzuki Car bearing registration No.CG07/AM/6827. 3. The Claims Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence adduced by respective parties, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of offending vehicle; allowed the application in part and awarded total sum of Rs.2,85,500/- as compensation to claimant/appellant herein. 4. Learned counsel for claimant/appellant submits that income of the deceased has not been properly assessed by the Claims Tribunal. He next contended that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount as compensation under the heads of ‘traveling expenses, special diet, attendant, loss of income during treatment, pains and sufferings, loss of amenities, expenses towards future medical treatment. Therefore, he prays that the amount of compensation be enhanced suitably. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of 3 respondent No.3 supporting the award passed by the Claims Tribunal has submitted that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused record of claim case including impugned award. 7. So far as income of the deceased is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has assessed income of appellant at Rs.7,500/- per month only, which in the opinion of this Court is not just and proper. Accident occurred on 18.1.2019 and at the time of accident, appellant was residing in District Durg, which comes within the category of ‘B’ Grade city. As the claimant failed to prove his occupation and income by leading clinching and cogent documentary evidence in support thereof, the Claims Tribunal ought to have taken resort to minimum wage prescribed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for an unskilled labour residing in Zone ‘B’ area of the State, for the relevant period i.e. 1.10.2019 to 31.3.2019, which was Rs.8,140/- per month. Accordingly, I find it appropriate to fix monthly income of appellant as Rs.8,140/-. It is ordered accordingly. 8. Further, while computing loss of future income, the Claims Tribunal has not added anything towards loss of future prospects. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sidram vs. The Divisional Manager, United Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439 even in cases of 4 permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor- accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future prospects as well. Hence, the Claims Tribunal erred in not adding anything towards future prospects while assessing income of appellant. Accordingly, it is ordered that appellant being in the age group of 51 to 60 years is entitled for addition of 10% of his income towards future prospects. Thus, after adding 10% towards future prospects to the income of appellant, as assessed above, total income of appellant comes out to Rs.8,954/- (8140+10%). Hence, total income of appellant for the purpose of computing compensation is fixed at Rs.8,954/- per month. 9. The Claims Tribunal considering the medical evidence i.e. statement of Dr. D.K. Patel (AW-2), who had issued the disability certificate (Ex.P-61), as also disability certificate adduced before it, accepted the extent of permanent disability of 40%. However, looking to the age of appellant, nature of work claimed to be discharged by appellant prior to accident i.e. labourer, and considering that disability of 40% is in respect of a part of the body and not for the whole body, has assessed functional disability 25%, which in the opinion of this Court is justified is based on proper appreciation of material available in record and does not call for any interference. However, since the income of appellant is re- 5 fixed at Rs.8,954/-, the loss of future earning capacity requires to be recalculated and after recalculation, the same would come to Rs.3,00,854/- (8954x12x7x40/100). Accordingly, it is ordered that appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.3,00,854/- in place of Rs.1,57,500/- for loss of future earning capacity. 10. The Claims Tribunal awarded lump sum amount of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of income for a period of four months. In view of re-fixation of income of appellant at Rs.8,954/- per month, the loss of income during treatment period of four months is also to be recalculated. Thus, upon recalculating, the loss of income during treatment period of four months would come to Rs.35,816/- (8954x4). It is ordered accordingly. 11. Considering the nature of injuries coupled with the fact that four fingers of right leg of appellant were amputated, medical treatment papers and period of treatment, the compensation of Rs.10,000/- each towards pains & suffering and loss of amenities is not proper and deserves to be enhanced. Accordingly, it is ordered that appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the head ‘pains and suffering’ and a sum of Rs.25,000/- for loss of amenities. 12. Looking to the age of appellant and nature of injuries it is quite obvious that during the period of treatment and some time thereafter, the appellant-claimant must have been put on 6 special rich diet for considerable period of time, for early recovery. Therefore, award of Rs.5,000/- towards special diet appears to be on lower side, which is hereby enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. Looking at the kind of injuries and period of treatment, it is quite obvious that on account of use of the conveyance for 'to and fro' to the hospital, substantial amount must have been spent by appellant-claimant, hence, the compensation of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal for conveyance is hereby enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. 13. As regards the medical expenses, learned counsel for the appellant could not able to point out as to which medical bill submitted by claimant escaped consideration. Hence, the medical expenses awarded by the Claims Tribunal does not call for any interference. As regards the compensation for future treatment, claimant/appellant did not produce any medical evidence to prove requirement of his medical treatment in future. 14. In view of above, claimant/appellant is now entitled for compensation as under;- HEADS : AMOUNT (In Rs.) Loss of future earning capacity (8954x12x7x40/100). : 3,00,854=00 Loss of income : 35,816=00 Medical expenses : 50000=00 For attendant : 10,000=00 For loss of amenities : 25,000=00 For pain and sufferings : 25,000=00 7 For special diet : 10,000=00 For traveling expenses : 10,000=00 For future treatment : 5,000=00 For vehicle damage : 3,000=00 Total: 4,74,670=00 15. Now, claimant/appellant is held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,74,670/- in place of Rs.2,85,500/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. This amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of application. Any amount disbursed to appellant pursuant to impugned award will be adjusted from the amount of compensation as awarded above. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/- SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI