1 2025:CGHC:22664 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1377 of 2019 1. Dashruram Netam S/o Shri Sukh Ram Netam Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Murnar Narayanpur Present Address Hikamipara Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1. Jaylal Sahare S/o Nandlal Sahare Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Arla Police Station Makri District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Vehicle) 2. Lokeshwar Dewangan S/o Shri Somlal Dewangan Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Bangalipara Narayanpur, District Narayanapur, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Vehicle ), 3. The Branch Manager The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office Nayapara Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Insurance ), ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsiyaan, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 09/06/2025 1. Appellant-claimant has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 12.3.2019 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Motor 2 Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.154/2018 by which learned Claims Tribunal allowed application of appellant- claimant in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.2,24,475/- to claimant/appellant herein, in an injury case. 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.10,00,000/- under various heads, on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor accident which occurred on 12.1.2016 while appellant was traveling in car bearing registration number CG17-TC-0149 (‘the offending vehicle’), which was driven by non-applicant No.1, owned by non- applicant No.2 and insured with non-applicant No.3. Offending vehicle dashed against a tree. It has been pleaded in the application that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1. 3. Non-applicant No.1 & 2 filed their reply to application denying averments made therein including negligence alleged against non-applicant No.1. They also pleaded that on the date of alleged accident, offending vehicle was insured with non- applicant No.3, therefore, insurance company is liable for compensation. 4. Non-applicant No.3 Insurance Company filed its reply 3 specifically denying averments made in claim application. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, driver of offending vehicle was not possessing valid license and as such, there was violation of conditions of insurance policy and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. 5. Upon appreciating the pleadings and evidence brought on record (oral and documentary both) by the respective parties, the Claims Tribunal arrived at conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1. The Claims Tribunal has allowed the application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.2,24,475/- together with interest @ 9% p.a. and since any of the policy conditions was not found to be violated, respondent No.3-Insurance Company was held liable to indemnify the insured. 6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal has awarded meager amount under the head medical expenses (future treatment expenses). Appellant will be required considerable amount for removal of implants and for that the expenses would be even more than Rs.25,000/-. He further submits that due to injuries sustained in accident, appellant could not able to perform his duties for a period of 18 months, however, the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation towards loss of income for one month only. The 4 compensation awarded under the head ‘pains and suffering’, special diet, attendant and transportation is also on lower side. Hence, he prays that amount of compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal be enhanced suitably. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposing submissions made by counsel for appellants, would submit that the impugned award passed by learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, which does not call for any interference. Appellant-claimant has not produced any document before the Claims Tribunal showing approximate expenditure to be incurred in future treatment for removal of implant. Nothing has been brought on record by the appellant indicating that due to injuries sustained in accident, he has been denied salary for a period of 18 months, causing him loss of income. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards future treatment. Keeping in mind the nature of injuries sustained by appellant; treatment undergone by appellant as also the fact that appellant did not produce any cogent and reliable evidence to prove requirement of future medical treatment even before this Court, the compensation awarded under this head cannot be said to be on lower side requiring enhancement of the said amount. 5 10. As regards compensation towards loss of income, according to appellant-claimant, he is a Government Servant working as Shiksha Karmi Grade-3 at the time of accident. He has claimed that on account of injuries sustained in the accident, he could not able to join his duty for a period of 18 months and therefore, he has not been paid salary for the aforesaid period. However, in support of said claim, appellant has not produced any documentary evidence or examined any person from his office to establish that he was not paid salary during period of his admission in hospital and treatment i.e. 18 months, or said period was treated as leave without pay. The Claims Tribunal considering the nature of injuries and period of hospitalization, granted Rs.25,000/- towards loss of income, which is just and reasonable and does not call for interference 11. So far as compensation towards ‘pain and suffering’, the Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-. Taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained and treatment the appellant had undergone, as borne out from medical records, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal under this head is on lower side and accordingly, it is enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. 12. Keeping in view the fact that appellant has suffered grievous injuries including fracture injury; a rod was implanted in his left leg after surgery and the period of treatment, the appellant 6 must have spent considerable sufficient amount on special diet and attendant, therefore, the compensation awarded under these heads is on lower side and deserves to be enhanced. Accordingly, it is ordered that appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.10,000/- each) for ‘special diet’ and ‘attendant’. 13. Believing the medical documents and bills filed by appellants as Ex.A-13 to A-86, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,52,475/- towards medical expenses as against total claim of Rs.4,00,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellant could not able to point out from the record that any specific bill placed in record escaped consideration. In the above facts of the case, I do not find any error in the award of compensation towards medical expenses, the same is hereby confirmed. 14. In view of above, claimant/appellant is entitled for compensation as under;- HEADS : AMOUNT (In Rs.) Medical expenses : 1,54,475=00 Future medical treatment expenses : 25,000=00 Loss of monthly income : 25,000=00 For pain and sufferings : 15,000=00 For special diet : 20,000=00 For attendant : 10,000=00 For Conveyance : 10,000=00 Total: 2,59,475=00 7 15. Now, claimant/appellant is held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,59,475/- in place of Rs.2,24,475/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. This amount shall carry interest @ 9% 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