-1- 2025:CGHC:17746 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 635 of 2021 Beeru Dhiwar S/o Laxmi Dhiwar Aged About 42 Years Occupation Mason, R/o Village And Post Beisonda, Police Station, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund (C.G.), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Abhay Kumar Malu S/o Nemichand Malu R/o Near Post Office, Mahasamund, Police Station, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund (C.G.) (Driver And Registered Owner Of Vehicle Car No. C.G. 04 Ky 0909, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Office, Third Floor 345- 347, Lalganga Shopping Mall G.E. Road, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) Insurer Of Vehicle Car No. C.G. 04 Ky 0909, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate For Respondents : None though served. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17.04.2025 1) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 26.06.2021 passed by the learned Ist Additional Motor Accident Claims learned Tribunal, District Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- Mahasamund (C.G.) in Claim Case No. H-205/2016, whereby the learned learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 6,84,150/- to the appellant/claimant . 2) Brief fact of the case are as follows: A. On 06.07.2013 at about 5:30 PM, the appellant was returning to his village Belsonda from Mahasamund on his motorcycle. Near Trimurti Colony, he was hit by a car bearing registration No. CG-04-YK-0909, allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No. 1. B. The appellant sustained grievous injuries and was initially treated at District Hospital, Mahasamund, and later referred to V.Y. Hospital, Raipur. C. At the time of the accident, the appellant was working as a mason earning Rs. 300/- per day. D. The respondents filed their reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition. E. The learned learned Tribunal framed four issues for determination and upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, passed the impugned award. 3) Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that: A. The compensation awarded by the learned learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves enhancement. B. The learned Tribunal erred in not awarding compensation towards permanent disability, and wrongly restricted the compensation period from 06.07.2016 to 06.07.2022. C. The learned Tribunal failed to apply the appropriate multiplier and also did not consider future prospects. -3- D. Compensation was wrongly denied for medical bills marked as Ex.P-44, 46, and 48, and no compensation was awarded for attendant charges. The rate of interest granted at 6% per annum is inadequate and should be 12% per annum. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length and perused the record of the learned Tribunal with utmost circumspection. 5) As per the disability certificate Ex.P-127 dated 06.03.2019 issued by the competent Board, the appellant has been assessed with 60% temporary physical impairment affecting the right side of the hipbone. Dr. N.K. Mandpe (PW-2) has duly corroborated the nature and extent of disability. 6) Regarding medical expenses, though the appellant produced numerous bills (Ex.P-10 to Ex.P-146), certain bills such as Ex.P-44, 46, and 48 were found to be duplicate entries bearing the same date and amount, and thus were rightly rejected by the learned Tribunal. Similarly, bills from Ex.P-76 to Ex.P-84 were without the name and seal of any medical authority and were also rightly rejected by the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal accepted the valid bills amounting to Rs. 4,43,128.26/- and rightly rounded them off to Rs. 4,43,150/- under the head of medical expenses. 7) The estimate of Rs. 2,50,000/- for future treatment expenses (Ex.P-122) was not supported by medical testimony and was, therefore, rightly not considered. 8) The learned Tribunal, considering the absence of documentary proof of income, reasonably assessed income of the claimant as Rs. 6,000/- per month (Rs. 72,000/- annually). As the 60% disability was assessed to be temporary and related to one limb, the learned Tribunal reasonably quantified it as 50% -4- disability to the whole body. 9) Accordingly, for a period of six years from 06.07.2016 to 06.07.2022, the learned Tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 2,16,000/- under the head of loss of income due to disability. 10) The learned Tribunal also awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards transportation, Rs. 5,000/- for special diet, and Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering, which appears to be reasonable in view of the injuries and period of treatment. 11) The total compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal stands as under: Sl No. Heads Compensation 1. Medical Expenses Rs.4,43,150/- 2. Loss of Income due to Temporary Disability Rs. 2,16,000/- 3. Transportation Charges Rs. 10,000/- 4. Special Diet Rs. 5,000/- 5. Pain and Suffering Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 6,84,150/- 12) The learned Tribunal has further directed the respondents to pay the compensation jointly and severally along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 13) In the present case, the appellant/claimant has failed to establish any cogent ground for enhancement of the compensation amount. 14) Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court does not find any -5- infirmity or illegality in the findings of the learned learned Tribunal. The compensation awarded is just and reasonable, considering the evidence on record and the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant. 15) Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim