1 2025:CGHC:33991 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1552 of 2019 1. Smt. Anjani Gupta W/o Santosh Gupta Aged About 40 Years R/o Vivekanand Ward No. 10, Mungeli Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant-claimant versus 1. Uttra Kumar Sahu S/o Dhannulal Sahu R/o Village Jhalpa, Thana Hirry, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Trailer No. CG10/R/2111), 2. Nitin Agrawal S/o Late Puran Agrawal Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Bilha, Ektanagar, Thana, Bilha District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Owner of the offending vehicle Trailer No. CG 10/R/2111). 3. The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Rama Trade Center 2nd Floor In Front Of Rajeev Plaza Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Trailer No. C.G. 10/r./2111) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. A.L. Singraul, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Surendra K Dewangan, Advocate q For Respondent No.2 : None though served. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. P. Dutta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 18/7/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.1/2019, an application for condonation of delay in filing this appeal as the same has been preferred with a delay of 68 days. 2. On due consideration of the pleadings made in I.A. No.1/2019 and submission of learned counsel for appellants, which is not opposed by learned counsel for respective respondents, I.A. No.1/2019 is allowed. Delay in filing this appeal is condoned. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon respondent No.3 insurance Company, therefore, this appeal may be heard finally. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 does not dispute the above submission of learned counsel for appellants and submits that he is having no objection if the appeal is heard finally. 5. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, this appeal is heard finally at admission stage. 6. Appellant-claimant, who suffered injuries in a road accident, has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 14.2.2019 in Claim Case No.42/2018. 3 7. Claimant-appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.17,50,000/-under various heads on account of injuries sustained by her in a road accident caused by offending vehicle i.e. Hywa bearing registration number CG10-R-2111, driven in a rash and negligent manner by non-applicant No.1/ respondent No.1 herein. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, claimant was 40 years old, engaged in the stitching of ladies garments and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. However, due to injuries sustained by her in the said accident, she has become permanently disabled. 8. Non-applicant No.1 and 2 filed joint reply to application and denied occurrence of any accident from their vehicle and pleaded that out of greed to get compensation, FIR is lodged against non-applicant No.1. It was further pleaded that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was insured with non- applicant No.3, non-applicant No.1 was having valid and effective driving license and therefore, if any compensation is awarded to claimant, then non-applicant No.3 is liable to pay the same. 9. Non-applicant No.3 also filed its reply denying the averments made therein. It was further pleaded that injured sustained injuries due to negligent act of driver of bus, who jumped from running bus as a result bus collided with offending vehicle 4 (Trailer). Thus, there is element of contributory negligence on the part of the driver of bus. 10. The Claims Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence adduced by respective parties, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of offending vehicle; there was no element of contributory negligence or violation of conditions of insurance policy and accordingly, allowed the application in part and awarded total sum of Rs.4,25,237/- as compensation to claimant/appellant herein. 11. Learned counsel for claimant/appellant submits that very meager amount is awarded towards loss of income. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side looking to the nature of injuries sustained by appellant and her period of treatment. Therefore, he prays that the amount of compensation be enhanced suitably. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents supporting the award passed by the Claims Tribunal has submitted that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused record of claim case including impugned award. 14. As regards the loss of income to appellant, there is no dispute 5 that appellant sustained injuries in the accident that was occurred on 1.12.2017. As per Discharge Summary of Apollo Hospitals, Bilaspur, appellant was admitted in Apollo Hospital Bilaspur on 2.12.2017 where she was diagnosed with 10% scald injury, sutured lacerated wound over forehead (left) and left scapular fracture; dressing of burns wound was done. Appellant was discharged on the same day. Another discharge summary of Apollo Hospital, available in record, would show that appellant was again hospitalized on 4.12.2017 and discharged on 19.12.2017. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by appellant, period of hospitalization, as mentioned in discharge summary, I am of the view that the appellant must have taken bed-rest at least for a period of 15 days to regain normal position. Consequently, she must not have done her work at least for a period 45 to 60 days. Thus, considering the nature of occupation pleaded in claim application, I am of the view that the appellant could be awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income during period of treatment. Hence, the compensation of Rs.5,000/- awarded by Claims Tribunal towards loss of income is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. 15. As regards the award of medical expenses, the Claims Tribunal considering the medical bills produced by claimant, which were on account of payment to the hospital towards treatment, medicines etc., awarded a total sum of 6 Rs.4,08,237/-. Learned counsel for appellant failed to point as to which medical bill was not considered and paid by the Claims Tribunal. In absence of any specific submission with respect to non-award of any particular bill, submission of learned counsel for appellant that the entire medical claim has not been considered and awarded by the Claims Tribunal is not sustainable and it is hereby repelled. 16. Looking to the nature of injuries i.e. burn wound on forehead, left scapular fracture, lacerated wound and period of treatment, the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal towards pains and sufferings, special diet and attendant is on lower and therefore, the same is hereby enhanced to Rs.20,000/- for pains and suffering, Rs.8,000/- for special diet and Rs.6,000/- for attendant. 17. In view of above, claimant/appellant is now entitled for compensation as under;- HEADS : AMOUNT (In Rs.) Loss of income. : 10,000=00 Medical expenses : 4,08,237=00 For attendant : 6,000=00 For pain and sufferings : 20,000=00 For special diet : 8,000=00 Total: 4,52,237=00 18. Now, claimant/appellant is held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,52,237/- in place of Rs.4,25,237/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. This enhanced amount of 7 compensation shall carry interest @ 8% 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/-