1 2025:CGHC:28389 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1486 of 2019 1 - Smt. Tulsi Bai W/o Ishwar Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Thakurdiya, Post Barkel Khurd Thana And Tahsil Pithora District Mahasamund Chhattigarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Rajkumar Mishra S/o Salikram Mishra Aged About 58 Years Occupation Driver R/o Near Shiv Mandir Danganiya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ( Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Car No. C.G. 04/ K.J./4592), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Swati Agrawal D/o Sharad Agrawal Aged About 32 Years R/o House No. 70, Near Deshbandhu Press Agrasen Chowk, Raipur, Chief Post Office Samta Colony,. Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Registared Ownwer Of The Offending Vehicle Car No. C.G. 04/k.J./4592), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - S.B.I. General Company Limited Pujari Chmabers 4th Floor, Panchpedi Naka Pujari, Near Gardan Dhamtari Road, N.H, 43, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Officending Vehicle Car No. C. G. 04/k.J/ 4592), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Ashish Bech, Advocate For Respondent No .3 : Mr. Shrishti Upadhyay, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 27/06/2025 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 award dated 08.02.2019 passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in Claim Case No. H-110/2016. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 05.07.2015 at about 05:00 P.M., when the applicant along with one Harish Kumar Chauhan was going towards Village Turidih from Village Childauni on his motorcycle and reached near Rautum at that time, one car bearing registration no. CG 04 KJ 4592 (hereinafter referred to as offending car) driven by the Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of Harish Kumar Chauhan and caused accident. In the said accident, applicant suffered serious injuries, she was taken to Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur, where she took treatment from 07.07.2015 to 25.07.2015. Subsequent to the said accident, an FIR was registered against the Respondent No. 1 bearing Crime No. 96/2015, P.S. Patewa, District - Mahasamund for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The applicant filed a claim application before the Learned Claims Tribunal pleading therein that due to the motor accidental injuries, she took treatment from 07.07.2015 to 25.07.2015. On account of injuries, she suffered permanent disability. At the time of accident, she was aged about 41 years and was doing the work of agricultural labourer and earning Rs. 300/- per day. Due to the injuries suffered by the applicant, she is facing difficulty in performing her work and daily activities which is causing financial loss to her family. Claimed compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- from the non-applicants before the learned Claims Tribunal. 3 4. The Non-Applicants No. 1 & 2 in reply to the pleadings made in the claim application have submitted their reply and pleaded that on the date of accident, driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Non-Applicant No. 1 was possessing valid and effective driving license, the offending vehicle was insured with the Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company and if there is any liability to pay compensation will be of the Non- Applicant No. 3. 5. The Non-Applicant No. 3 opposing the pleadings made by the applicant/claimant submitted its reply and pleaded that on 05.07.2015, the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy, as the offending vehicle was not having valid permit and fitness. It is further pleaded that the driver of the vehicle i.e. motorcycle bearing registration CG 06 K 7519 was driving his vehicle rashly and negligently and caused accident. 6. The Claims Tribunal upon appreciating the pleadings and evidence placed on record (oral and documentary) by the respective parties has arrived at a conclusion that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the Non-Applicant No. 1/Driver, there was no violation of any conditions of insurance policy. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal partly allowed claim application and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,02,000/- along with interest @ 7% p.a. by assessing monthly income of applicant as Rs. 4,500/- on notional basis and fastened the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Non-Applicant No. 3. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. The appellant suffered motor accidental injuries on 4 05.07.2025 over right thigh, ankle and knee. There were multiple fractures over knee and it was treated by implanting steel rod, her right foot thumb was amputed. She suffered permanent disability to the extent of 45% as assessed by the Medical Board, Mahasamund (Ex. P/5). The learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding less amount of compensation under the head of loss of income by assessing the loss of earning capacity to the extent of 20% only, overlooking the nature of occupation of the deceased as Labourer. He next contended that the amount of compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side. 8. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respective respondents opposes the submission of counsel for the appellant/claimant and would submit that the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference. They further contended that the learned Claims Tribunal further considering the fact that the permanent disablement is only on the part of the body and not for the whole body and therefore, has computed 20% loss of earning capacity, which cannot be said to be erroneous. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the claim case. 10.As per the documents of the Department of Orthopedics of Dr. Bhirmrao Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur available on record, the appellant suffered multiple fractures over her right leg. She suffered Subtrochontric Femur (right) and Bimalleolar (right). The claimant remained admitted in hospital from 05.07.2015 to 25.07.2015. The discharge summary of Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Hospital is filed as Ex. P/8, wherein, the date of admission is 07.07.2015 and discharge on 5 25.07.2015. The Disability Certificate is filed as Ex. P/5 mentioning that there was malunion of neck femur (right) and the disability assessed is 45%. Dr. N.K. Mandappe (AW-2) was examined to prove the Disability Certificate (Ex. P/5). In his evidence, he admitted that the disability mentioned in the Disability Certificate is with respect to one leg only and not for the whole body. In view of the aforementioned medical document and the evidence available on record, the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the loss of earning capacity of the appellant as 20%, considering the nature of occupation as pleaded therein. The finding by the learned Claims Tribunal of loss of earning capacity to the extent of 20% cannot be said to be erroneous. Accordingly, it is affirmed. 11.The learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant/claimant as Rs. 4,500/- per month. The date of accident is 05.07.2015, even if the claimant is not able to prove the income by clinching and admissible piece of evidence, then also, the learned Claims Tribunal could have considered the nature of occupation of the deceased to be of Unskilled Labourer and had taken the help of the minimum-wages as fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for assessing income. According to the minimum-wages fixed by the competent authority, the wages of the Unskilled Labourer on the date of accident was Rs. 5,787/- and therefore, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased as Rs. 5,787/- per month instead of Rs. 4,500/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 12. Further, the learned Claims Tribunal recorded a finding that the appellant suffered permanent disablement, however, has not awarded 6 any compensation towards the loss of future prospects. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sidram Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr. reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439 has held that in case of permanent disability also, there shall be addition of the percentage of income towards the future prospects and held thus:- “31. It is now a well-settled position of law that even in cases of 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. We have come across many orders of different tribunals and unfortunately affirmed by different High Courts, taking the view that the claimant is not entitled to compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. That is not a correct position of law. There is no justification to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading is illogical because it denies altogether the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in accident cases — and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim's death.” 13.Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandramani Nanda Vs. Sarat Chandra Swain & Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2859 has 7 observed that in the case of permanent disability also, the claimant will be entitled for compensation under the head of loss of future prospect and held as under:- “ 14.3 However, the Tribunal and the High Court both have failed to consider the fact that the appellant is also entitled for enhancement on account of future prospects. Hence, in line with the law laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi10, given the age of appellant was 32 years at the time of accident, he is entitled to 40% future prospects.“ In view of the aforementioned decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that where the injured/claimant suffered permanent disability, there should be addition of loss of future prospects based on the age of the deceased as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 14. As on the date of accident, the claimant was in between 40-50 years and therefore, there shall be addition of 25% of the assessed income towards the loss of future prospects. Hence, I find it appropriate to add 25% of the assessed income towards the loss of future prospects. It is ordered accordingly. 15. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 7233.75/- (5787+ 1446.75) and the yearly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 86,805/- (7233.75 X 12). The appellant is aged about 41 years and therefore, the multiplier of 14 as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 would be 8 applicable, The total income of the deceased would come to Rs. 12,15,270/- (87,900 X 14). As this Court has assessed the loss of earning of the appellant to the extent of 20% and therefore, the loss of income would come to Rs. 2,43,054/- (20% of 12,15,270). 16. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- under the head of conveyance and special diet, which in the opinion of this Court is on lower side and it is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/-. Learned Claims Tribunal has correctly awarded Rs. 25,000/- towards the pains and sufferings which does not call for any interference. The Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under the head of loss of amenities in life. The appellant/claimant being a woman, aged about 41 years has to live her life with the same disability and therefore, I find it appropriate to award Rs. 25,000/- towards the loss of amenities in life. The learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head of loss of income during the laid down period. Considering the nature of injuries suffered and period of treatment as inpatient, I find it appropriate to award compensation for loss of income during the period of treatment for 03 months i.e. Rs. 17,361/- (5787 X 3) and Rs. 15,000/- towards attendant. It is ordered accordingly. 17.Now, the appellant/claimant will be entitled for the total amount of compensation which is as under:- • Rs. 3.45,415/- [2,43,054 (loss of future prospects) + 20,000 (conveyance and special diet) + 25,000 (pains and sufferings) + 25,000 (loss of amenities in life) + 17,361 (loss of income during laid down period) + 15,000 (attendant)] 9 18. This enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 19. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellant as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above. 20. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. 21. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/-d/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey