1 2025:CGHC:28341 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1432 of 2019 1 - Kamlesh S/o Punadas Jangadey Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Gopibandpara Pandariya, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1 - Sandeep Singh Verma S/o Bihari Lal Verma Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Navagaon Jhottha, Thana- Lormi, District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ( Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Car No. C.G. 28/E/5841). 2 - Smt. Anjanadevi Das W/o Late Mahant Yogendra Kumar Das Aged About 55 Years R/o Chhoteraja Bada Lormi, Tahsil And District-Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Rama Trade Center, Old Bus Stand Raod Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---Respondents For Appellant : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate with Ms. Laxmin Tondey, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 2 27/06/2025 1. Claimant/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, District – Mungeli (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 14.03.2019 passed in Claim Case No.43/2018 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.53,100/- as compensation in a death case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that a claim application was filed by the appellant/injured claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of the injuries suffered by him in the road accident alleging that on 10.04.2018 at 9:00 pm, appellant along with Anand Tandon and Santosh Kumar were travelling on the motor cycle and were going from Pandaria to village Koylari, when they reached near the bridge of village Bisesara, non-applicant no. 01, driving his vehicle car no. CG-28/E/5841 in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the applicant, due to which Anand Tandon, suffered serious and life-threatening injuries on his head and both hands and legs, he was admitted to CIMS Bilaspur, where he died during the course of treatment. Appellant suffered fracture of tibia fibula bone of his right leg and also suffered serious injuries in his right eye. He was admitted to the Primary Health Center, Pandariya and after primary treatment, he was admitted to CIMS Hospital Bilaspur and thereafter he was admitted to Budhiya Hospital, where his right leg was operated and steel rod was implanted. Due to the injuries, he suffered permanent disability. 3 3. Non-applicant No.1 filed reply to the claim application and while refuting the pleading made in the application denied the happening of accident. The income and the occupation of the deceased was also denied. Respondent No.3 by filing the reply to the claim application also denied the happening of accident. It was pleaded that the claim application was filed exaggerating the amount of compensation on false and fabricated grounds. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.53,100/- and fastened the liability upon non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company to indemnify the insured. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs.53,100/- as compensation in grievous injuries suffered by the appellant. Appellant suffered fracture of 1/3 of Tibia Fibula of his right leg. He took treatment as inpatient in CIMS Hospital for about 14 days, the nature of injuries, period of treatment as also the loss suffered by appellant during the period of treatment has not been properly appreciated and considered by the learned Claims Tribunal. 6. Learned counsel for respective respondents opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal considering the entirety of the facts of the case, nature of injuries has awarded just compensation, which does not call for any interference. 4 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of the claim case. 8. Perusal of the record of claim case would show that the date of accident is 10.04.2018. After accident, he was taken to nearby Government Hospital, wherein doctor in MLC recorded fracture of 1/3 tibia fibula in right leg apart from the other injuries. Appellant was admitted in the CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur from 11.04.2018 to 23.04.2018 for about 14 days and thereafter he was referred to higher hospital. Appellant thereafter took treatment from Budhiya Hospital and Maternity Home, where he was admitted from 24.04.2018 till 29.04.2018. In diagnosis there is mention of compound fracture of tibia fibula. The discharge ticket of CIMS Hospital is filed as Ex.A-2 and discharge ticket of Budhiya Hospital is filed as Ex.A-24. From the documents available on record it is appearing that the appellant suffered infection in the injuries suffered by him and thereafter took treatment as inpatient from 14.11.2018 to 24.11.2018 at Sanjivani Hospital and Research Center, Bilaspur. 9. Entire documents of the hospital relating to the treatment would show that appellant suffered grievous injuries over his person, however, the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under the head of grievous injuries. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,000/- towards conveyance expenses, which in the opinion of this Court is on lower side. From the records, it is appearing that the deceased met with an accident within the territorial jurisdiction of Pandariya. He thereafter took treatment from CMIS Hospital, Bilaspur and thereafter from Budhiya Hospital and Maternity Home, 5 Bilaspur till 29.04.2018. The appellant due to the infection over the injuries was again admitted in the hospital at Bilaspur, therefore, in the opinion of this Court the appellant might have expended much more amount than what is awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal, therefore, I find it appropriate to award Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance expenses. It is ordered accordingly. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs.4,000/- towards special diet, towards attendant Rs.2,000/- and towards pains and suffering Rs.15,000/- overlooking the nature of injuries suffered and the fact that appellant took treatment as inpatient for about 40 days. Hence, the amount of compensation awarded under the head of special diet is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-, the amount of Rs.2000/- awarded towards attendant is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- and amount of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. 10. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under the head of loss of income during the period of treatment. Admittedly appellant suffered motor accidental injuries on 10.04.2018. The documents of the hospital would show that the nature of injuries and the period of treatment. Appellant took treatment from April, 2018 till November, 2018 and looking to th enature of injuries, he thereafter may not able to work for further couple of months. Taking into consideration, the date of accident on 10.04.2018 and the period of treatment till November, 2018 I find it appropriate to assess the loss of income for about 9 months. It is ordered accordingly. The appellant/claimant though have pleaded that he is working as mason and earning Rs.8,000/- per month, however, no admissible piece of 6 evidence in this regard has been placed before the Claims Tribunal. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the income of the injured is to be assessed on notional basis taking his occupation to be of unskilled labour. During the period of accident, the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority under Minium Wages Act, 1948 is Rs.8,140/-, however, the income of the injured is assessed as Rs.8,000/- per month as per the pleadings made by the appellant with respect to his income of Rs.8,000/-. Accordingly, the claimant will be entitled for loss of income during the period of treatment of Rs.72,000/- (8,000 x 9 = 72,000/-). Looking to the nature of injuries, I am inclined to award Rs.10,000/- towards the grievous injuries suffered by the appellant. 11. The amount of compensation awarded under the head of medical expenses of Rs.30,100/- is affirmed as the counsel for the appellant could not able to point out that the claims Tribunal has not considered the any of the bills placed and exhibited. 12. For the forgoing discussions the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellants required recomputation, which is as under :- SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. Medical expenses : 30,100.00 2. Conveyance expenses : 10,000.00 3. Special diet : 10,000.00 4. Attendant : 10,000.00 5. For pains and suffering : 25,000.00 6. For loss of income : 72,000.00 7. For grievous injuries : 10,000.00 Total Compensation : 1,67,100.00 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellants shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,67,100.00. Any amount paid to 7 the appellant as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 14. 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 Balram