1 2025:CGHC:28356 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1455 of 2019 1. Anand Nirmalkar S /o G.L. Nirmalkar Aged About 30 Years R/o Girdhari Nagar, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant-claimant Versus 1. Ravi Sahani S/o Late Manmohan Sahani Aged About 38 Years Driver, R/o Ward No. 12, Jaihind Chowk, Muktidham Road, Ram Nagar, Supela, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh ( Driver Of Truck No. H.R. 55, Q. 4509), 2. Ranjit Singh S/o Gurnam Sing R/o (1) Ag - 359, S.F. Transport Nagar, Delhi - 110042 (2) 2/369-270, S.F. Pocket -2, Rohini Sector -23, Delhi And H. No. 16, Rajendra Park Gudgaon, (Owner Of Truck No. H. R. 55, Q. 4509) 3. S.B.I. General Insurance Company Limited, 4th Floor, Pujari Chambers, Nh 43, Pachpedi Naka, Dhamtari Road, Raipur District Raipur (CG) (Insurer Of Truck No. H.R.55, Q4509) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Majid Ali, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Utsav Mahishwar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 27/6/2025 1. This miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) has been preferred on behalf of appellant-injured for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned 6th Additional Motor 2 Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District Durg (CG) (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 19.3.2019 in Claim Case No.200/2016 by which a sum of Rs.13,89,983=63 paise has been awarded as compensation for 80% permanent disability suffered by claimant in a motor vehicular accident. 2. Appellant-claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.95,00,000/- under various heads, pleading that on 28.4.2015 at about 6-7:00 p.m. while he was standing near Pathariya Chowk, Nandini waiting for bus, the truck bearing registration number HR55-Q-4509, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by non-applicant No.1-driver, dashed him and caused accident. Claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries resulting in amputation of his left leg above knee. At the time of accident, claimant was 40 years of age, working as Dry-cleaner and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. 3. Application filed by claimant-injured was resisted by non- applicants Nos.1 to 3, i.e. the owner-insured and the insurer on the ground that the offending vehicle was not driven rashly and negligently, the accident was outcome of negligence on the part of claimant himself. Non-applicant No.3 also resisted the claim of claimants by filing its reply and pleading that offending vehicle was being used in violation of the conditions of the policy and, therefore, insurance company, in any case, is not 3 liable to indemnify the insured. 4. Learned Claims Tribunal after analyzing the evidence brought on record by the respective parties, allowed the application of claimants in part, awarded compensation of Rs.13,89,983=76 paise along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. 5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant suffered sever motor accidental injuries on both his lower limbs, his left leg was amputated above knee and deformity was found in his right leg. Due to nature of injuries suffered including amputation of left leg above knee, appellant could not able to do his work as he was doing prior to accident and thereby he has suffered 100% loss of earning capacity. However, the Claims Tribunal has assessed loss of earning capacity to the extent of 80% only. He next contended that in the evidence before the Claims Tribunal it has come that appellant has purchased an artificial leg, but no compensation has been awarded for the same. Similarly, the compensation awarded under other heads are also on lower side. Hence, he prays that the amount of compensation be enhanced suitably. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 opposes the submissions of learned counsel for appellant and submit that the Claims Tribunal considering the entire pleadings, evidence brought on record and the nature of 4 injuries suffered by appellant, has awarded compensation on all the heads for which the appellant was entitled for in the facts of the case. The Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation which does not call for any interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record of claim case including impugned award. 8. Perusal of record of claim case would show that the claimant has filed the documents of hospital where he took treatment i.e. Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur, including discharge ticket. In the discharge ticket the final diagnosis noted is “polytrauma with compound comminuted fracture right proximal tibia with compound comminuted fracture right distal femoral condyle with compound fracture left proximal tibia gustilo anderson grade II (Vascular Injury)”. 9. Appellant has also placed on record copy of disability certificate issued by the competent authority as Ex.P-1 wherein permanent disability suffered by appellant is mentioned as 70% due to amputation of left leg. Nature of work pleaded by claimant in the claim application is ‘Dry-cleaner’. The Claims Tribunal considering the injuries suffered on both lower limbs, amputation of left leg and nature of occupation, as pleaded in application and stated in the evidence, has assessed the loss of earning capacity of appellant as 80%, which cannot be said to be on lower side in the facts of the case. Hence assessment of 5 loss of earning capacity of appellant as 80% is hereby affirmed. 10. The Claims Tribunal for assessing loss of earning capacity has assessed income of appellant as Rs.6,000/- per month. The appellant-claimant though pleaded his income to be Rs.15,000/- per month from the work of dry-cleaning of clothes etc. but he has not produced any documentary evidence in this regard. In absence of any admissible piece of evidence on record, the Claims Tribunal has assessed income of appellant as Rs.6,000/- assuming that due to nature of work in which appellant is engaged a person might be earning some more than an unskilled labourer. Said finding also cannot be said to be erroneous in absence of specific documentary evidence with respect to income. Hence, assessment of income at Rs.6,000/- of the appellant by the Claims Tribunal is hereby affirmed. 11. The Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance expenses. Appellant is resident of Durg, he took treatment from Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur. Appellant suffered serious injuries on both his lower limbs including amputation of left leg above knee. Under these circumstances, the amount awarded under the head of conveyance expenses is on lower side and deserves to be enhanced. Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- for conveyance expenses. It is ordered accordingly. 12. Looking to the nature of injuries suffered by appellant, he must 6 have taken rest for couple of months thereafter and therefore, considering the period of treatment and nature of injuries, I find it appropriate to award Rs.10,000/- for special diet and Rs.15,000/- for attendant. 13. The Claims Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.18,000/- for the loss of income during period of treatment. Considering nature of injuries, in particular amputation of left leg above knee and deformity in right leg, I am of the view that the appellant is entitled for loss of income for a period of five months in place of three months as fixed by the Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, it is ordered the appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (6000x5) for the loss of income during treatment period. 14. The Claims Tribunal has rightly calculated the amount of compensation under the head of loss of future income by assessing income as Rs.6,000/-, adding 25% towards loss of future prospects and applying multiplier of 15. 15. Appellant was 40 years of age at the time of accident, he suffered amputation of his left leg above knee, he has live rest of his life with such disability. The Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities in life, which in the opinion of this Court, is on lower side. Accordingly, it is ordered that appellant is entitled for Rs.40,000/- for loss of amenities in life. Compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal under the head of pain and sufferings is also enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. 7 16. As regards the submission of learned counsel for appellant that Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for artificial limb, the appellant has not produced any evidence like purchase bill, before the Claims Tribunal showing purchase of artificial limb and therefore, it cannot be said that the Claims Tribunal has committed error by not granting any compensation for artificial limb. 17. In view of above, claimant/appellant is now entitled for compensation as under;- HEADS : AMOUNT (In Rs.) Loss of earning capacity : 10,80,000=00 Loss of income (5x6000) : 30,000=00 Medical Treatment expenses : 2,37,484=00 For Special Diet : 10,000=00 For Attendant : 15,000=00 For pain and sufferings : 40,000=00 For loss of amenities in life : 40,000=00 For traveling expenses : 15,000=00 Total: 14,67,484=00 18. Now, claimant/appellant is held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.14,67,484/- in place of Rs.13,89,983=76 paise as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. This amount shall 8 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. 19. 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