1 2025:CGHC:3738 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1442 of 2016 Ramlal Rajwade S/o Sukhlal Rajwade, Aged About 29 Years Occupation Agriculture and Labour, R/o Village Kailashpur, Police Station And Tahsil Sonhat, District Korea, Chhattisgarh ...............Claimant, ... Appellant versus 1 - Sakir Hussain S/o Ali Ahmad Jafri, Aged About 45 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Moharpara, Ward No.9, Manendragarh, Police Station And Tahsil Manendragarh, District Korea, Chhattisgarh, 2 - Narayan Prasad S/o Ramsahay Jaiswal, Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No.6, Ita Dafai, Jhagrakhand, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Korea, Chhattisgarh, 3 - Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Pandey Complex Moharpara Road, Manendragarh, District Korea, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondents 1 & 2 : None, though served. For Respondent 3 : Shri Deepak Gupta, Advocate. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Judgment on Board 21/01/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the MV Act) by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- awarded in Claim Case No.49/2015 vide award dated 15.07.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur (for short, 'the Tribunal). The parties to this appeal shall herein after be referred as per their description before the Court below. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the story is that on 04.09.2014, when the appellant/claimant was going on his motorcycle along with one Anil, from village Latma to Kailashpur and as soon as he reached village Katgodi road, Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR ALLENA Date: 2025.01.22 18:05:15 +0530 2 at the same time, Maruti Omni bearing registration No.CG-16-B-0425, being driven by its driver – Sakir Hussain (Non-applicant No.1) in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the appellant, resulting into, he sustained serious injuries on various parts of his body. Firstly, he was treated at Baikunthpur, Amikapur District Hospital and then he was referred to Raipur. It is not disputed that the offending vehicle was owned by Non-applicant No.2 and insured by Non-applicant No.3/insurer. 3. On account of serious injuries sustained by the claimant, a claim application was filed by him under Section 166 of the MV Act seeking compensation of Rs.31,80,000/- under various heads, pleading inter alia, that he was aged 28 years at the time of accident and used to earn Rs.7,500/- per month by working as agriculture and labour works and that he is unable to perform his duties due to loss vision caused on account of accident. The claim application was resisted by the Non-applicants on various grounds including that the insurance company taking a plea that there is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 4. Learned Claims Tribunal framed issues on the basis of pleadings and evidence and decided the same in favour of the appellant/claimant in Clam Case and awarded lump-sum amount of compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of award till its realisation while fastening liability upon the Non-applicant No.3/Insurer to pay compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal has committed an illegality in awarding lump-sum amount of compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-, which is a meagre compensation, which deserves to be enhanced. Referring to the statement of A.W.1 Ramlal Rajwade/claimant supported by the statement of A.W.2 Dr. R.S.Sengar, he submits that permanent disability certificate was issued by the Medical Board vide Ex.P.15, according to which, the claimant was found to be 100% disabled in 3 his both eyes, which fact was confirmed by A.W.2 R.S.Sengar and the learned Claims Tribunal also held the permanent disability of the appellant to be 100%, however, he further submits that the Tribunal has erred in assessing monthly income at Rs.3,000/- which is on lower side and even if the provisions of minimum wages would apply on the date of accident, then he being an unskilled labourer could have easily earned Rs.5,468/- per month. He further contends that at the time of accident, the age of the injured claimant was 28 years, as per medical document and applicable multiplier would be 17, however, the Tribunal did not apply any multiplier and that loss of income towards future prospects has also not been awarded by the Tribunal, moreover, reasonable amounts on other conventional heads have also not been awarded by the Tribunal. In support, he relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent 3/insurance company, while admitting that no separate appeal has been preferred by the insurer against the impugned award, submits that the Tribunal, upon due and proper appreciation of the evidence led before it, has rightly awarded just and fair compensation, which does not require no interference by this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including the evidence adduced on record. 8. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence adduced by the claimant, has answered the issue No.1in affirmative by holding the Non-applicant No.1 liable for accident, which resulted into, serious injuries including permanent disability sustained by the appellant. 9. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to 4 be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 10. Now I shall examine as to whether the lump-sum compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. Admittedly, in an vehicular accident that had taken place on 04.09.2014, the appellant/claimant sustained grievous injures on his eyes, teeth, face and nose. Looking to the grievous injuries, he was taken to Government Hospital, Baikunthpur and Ambikapur where he was admitted for 5 days and thereafter, he was referred to Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur where he was also admitted for a period of 12 days and during that period his right eye was operated. Supporting the statement of A.W.1 (claimant), A.W.2 Dr. R.S.Sengar has stated that he suffered permanent disability on his both eyes to the extent of 100%. In support of oral evidence, documentary evidence, i.e., Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15 including documents relating to criminal case and medical documents and disability certificate Ex.P.15© have been filed. The Tribunal, considering the evidence, oral and documentary as also material available on record and further looking to the nature and number of injuries also held permanent disability to the extent of 100% on his both eyes, but erred in assessing monthly income of Rs.3,000/- and annual income of Rs.36,000/-. And also considering the statements of A.W.1 and A.W.2 i.e., Claimant and Dr.R.S.Sengar, awarded lump-sum amount of Rs.8,00,000/- as total compensation without applying multiplier, future prospects and awarding conventional heads. The approach of the Tribunal in assessing Rs.3,000/- as monthly income of the deceased, in not awarding future prospects, in not applying multiplier and amounts under other conventional heads is not just and proper. Considering the facts of the case, looking to his nature of work and as per prevalent minimum wages, it can safely be held that he could 5 have easily earned Rs.5,468/- per month by working as daily-wage labourer. Therefore, I propose to reassess the compensation by taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,468/- per month and Rs.65,616/- per annum. At the time of accident, age of the deceased was pleaded to be 28 years, therefore, applicable multiplier would be 17. The injured/claimant is also entitled to be awarded future prospects as at the time of accident he was aged 28 years and below 40 years, therefore, the applicable percentage would be 40%. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and number of injuries including permanent disability sustained by the claimant/inured, the period of his hospitalisation, during which period, he had to undergo continuous treatment, further considering the fact that during treatment of claimant, he suffered severe mental agony and pain arising out of grievous injuries, the expenses incurred by him during the course of treatment and the unrebutted evidence adduced in support thereof, this Court is of the opinion that the claimant/appellant is entitled for an additional lump-sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, attendant, transportation and diet, which would meet the ends of justice. Further, a sum of Rs.304/- towards medical expenses has been awarded, which also includes in the total amount of compensation. 13. Taking guidance from the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra), this Court re-computes the compensation in the following manner :- Sl. No. Description Amount in Rs. 1. Income of the deceased @ Rs.5,468/- per month 65,616/- 2. Multiplier of 17 applied to assess total annual income 11,15,472/- 3. 40% of (1) above to be added towards future prospects 4,46,188/- 4. Total annual income of the deceased 15,61,660/- 6 5. Towards pain & suffering, attendant, transportation and special diet 1,00,000/- 6. Medical expenses awarded by the Tribunal 304/- Total compensation 16,61,964/- Award of the learned Tribunal. (-) 8,00,000/- Enhanced amount by this Court 8,61,964/- 14. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. Hence, the injured/claimant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.8,61,964/-. The additional amount shall carry interest as made by the Tribunal from the date of passing of award by the Tribunal till its realisation. The enhanced amount with interest shall be deposited by the insurer. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani