1 / 7 2025:CGHC:28838 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1502 of 2019 • Tikeshwar Sahu S/o Late Shri Toran Lal Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Kusmi, Police Station And Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant/ Claimant versus 1. Mohd. Yajuddin S/o Shri Badruddin Aged About 48 Years R/o Lodhipara, Raipur, Police Station Civil Line Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Bus Bearing Registration No. 04 E.A. 0203) 2. Samim Ashraf Through Power Of Attorney Holder And Director, Mohd. Safik, S/o Mohd. Sayeed Musalman, Aged About 30 Years R/o Gurunanak Chowk, Hussaini Plaza M. G. Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Bus Bearing Registration No. 04 E.A. 0203) 3. Divisional Manager The New India Insurance Company Limited, Jeevan Beema Mark, Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Branch Office Ambedkar Chowk, Balouda Bazar- District Balouda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. Insurer of the Offending Vehicle Bus Bearing Registration No. 04 E.A. 0203) --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mrs. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Mrs. Preeti Yadav, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 30/06/2025 1. This is an admitted appeal. There is no representation on behalf of Respondent No. 2, though served. Office report shows that the Respondent No. 1 is not served due to insufficient address. PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 7 2. Learned counsel for appellant submits that Respondents No. 1 and 2 remained ex parte before the Claims Tribunal even after service of notice. The liability to satisfy award is upon non-applicant no. 3 insurance company. Hence, service of notice upon Respondent No. 1 (driver of offending vehicle) be dispensed with. Considering the facts of the case prayer is allowed and the case is heard in absence of owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 3. Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the award dated 25.07.2019 passed by Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 39/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 165, 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 87,356/- as compensation in motor accidental injury case. 4. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 15.07.2017 at about 08:30 pm in the night, applicant/appellant was going from Palari to village Kusmi in a bus bearing number CG04 EA 0203 (henceforth “offending bus”). When near UCO bank offending bus stopped, he was trying to de- board the bus, at the same time non-applicant No. 1/ driver of it accelerate the bus rashly and negligently due to which his right leg came under the wheel of the offending bus and caused fracture. He was taken to Primary Health Centre, Palari and from where he was referred to hospital at Raipur. The accident was reported to police station Palari based on which Crime No. 248/17 was registered against non-applicant No.1 for alleged offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC. 5. Appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 15,00,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident appellant was about 34 years of age, was an able bodied person. At the time 3 / 7 of the accident he was doing the work of Conductor of the bus and was earning ₹ 15,000/- per month. Due to accident, he is unable to work as he was used to do before accident. 6. Respondent No. 1 & 2 / Non-applicant No. 1 & 2 -owner and driver of the vehicle ambulance did not appear before the Claims Tribunal even after service of notice and they were proceeded ex parte. 7. Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company filed its reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that on the date of accident, the bus was being plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy as the driver of the bus did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the bus and it was being driven without valid permit and fitness certificate. 8. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that appellant-Tikeshwar Sahu suffered grievous injuries in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending bus driven by non-applicant No. 1, the appellant did not receive injuries due to fall. Contributory negligence on the part of appellant injured was not found to be proved, breach of conditions of insurance policy was found to be proved. Calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 87,356/- as total compensation with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization and exonerated the non- applicant No. 3-insurance Company from its liability. However, issued direction to non-applicant No. 3 to pay and recover. 9. Learned counsel for appellant-claimant would submit that the appellant met with an accident while de-boarding the bus and due to rash and negligent act of driver of offending bus, his leg came under the wheel due to which he suffered grievous injuries. She contended that the appellant suffered commuted fracture lower 3rd right tibia fibula, fracture of shaft femur. He took 4 / 7 treatment as in patient from 15.07.2017 to 10.08.2017, however, during course of treatment he underwent operation and rod was implanted on the right leg. She also submits that even after discharge from the hospital, appellant could not able to do any work for many months, however, learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded appropriate amount of compensation towards loss of income during the period of treatment. She further contended that appellant has submitted disability certificate, Ext. A-12, mentioning 50% of deprivate disability over his right leg, temporary for a period of three years. Overlooking the aforementioned facts of the case learned Tribunal has awarded less amount of compensation, no compensation is awarded towards loss of future prospects to the extent of 25% and no amount is awarded towards attendant in the facts of the case. She prays for suitable enhancement of amount of compensation. 10. Learned Senior counsel for Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that the amount of compensation awarded is just and proper and it does not call for any interference. Learned Claims Tribunal exonerated the insurance company from its liability recording a finding that on the date of accident the offending bus was being driven in breach of policy conditions and direction of pay and recover was issued. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. 12. Perusal of documents would show that appellant suffered motor accidental injuries on 15.07.2017. The discharge ticket, Ext. A-13, of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur would show that the appellant took treatment as in patient from 15.07.2017 to 10.08.2017. Nature of injury as mentioned in the other documents available before this Court which would show that the appellant-claimant suffered fracture of shaft femur M/3 right L/3 tibia febula, interlocking was done. Ext. A-17 is the prescription of Department of Radio 5 / 7 Diagnosis of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur dated 26.06.2018 mentioning commuted and displaced fracture noted in right tibia and fibula. From the documents available in record would suggest that the appellant met with an accident on 15.07.2017, on the same day he was admitted in the hospital and discharged on 10.08.2017. Appellant thereafter continuously took treatment from Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur till 11.09.2018. 13. Looking to the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant, he could not be able to work for couple of months. Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of loss of income during period of treatment. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I find it appropriate to award loss of income during period of treatment for 06 months. It is ordered accordingly. 14. Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded the medical bills placed and proved, the compensation towards mental pain and suffering, special diet and loss of amenities in life ₹ 20,000/-, medical expenses of ₹ 2356, which does not call for any interference. Claims Tribunal has awarded only ₹ 25,000/- towards loss of future income. To prove the disability suffered by the appellant, he has submitted disability certificate issued by the Medical Board a Ext. A-12. The disability is temporary for three years and it further mentions of re- assessment is not recommended after three years. According to the pleadings, appellant-claimant has been sown to be working as Conductor in the bus, however, the said pleadings and the income as pleaded therein could not be proved by placing clinching evidence. Even if the claimant is treated to be an unskilled labourer, he might not able to perform his work for a considerable period of time. Dr. Wasim Raza has been examined as AW-3, in his evidence he stated that on examination of appellant he found implant of rod on his right leg. He further stated that upon his examining he found 50% disability of temporary nature and recovery period of disability is stated to be for three years. Claimant after the period of three year is not required himself for examination and no further document is placed on record. In the opinion 6 / 7 of this Court considering the nature of injury, evidence of doctor and disability certificate, I find it appropriate to award loss of income of 50% for a period 18 months. It is ordered accordingly. 15. Claims Tribunal has not considered or calculated the income of appellant appropriately. Claimant though pleaded that he was working as Conductor of passengers bus and earning ₹ 15,000/- per month, however, the said pleading has not been proved by placing clinching evidence. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I find it appropriate to held that the occupation of appellant to be one of the unskilled labourer to compute his income considering the minimum wages prevailing on the date of accident, notified by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act. The date of accident is 15.07.2017 and minimum wages for unskilled labourer during that period was ₹ 7800/- per month and therefore the income of injured/ appellant would be ₹ 7800 per month. It is ordered accordingly. As this court has held that the appellant suffered loss of income to the extent of 50% for the period of 18 months. After apportioning the amount, the loss of income will come to ₹ 70,200/- [₹7800 x 18 (x50%)] 16. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellant-claimant requires recomputation, which is as under. Particulars Compensation Loss of income during laid down period of 06 months (₹ 7800x6) ₹ 46,800/- Loss of income to the extent of 50% for 18 months ₹ 7800 x 18 (x50%) ₹ 70,200/- Medical expenses ₹ 2,356/- Loss of amenities in life ₹ 20,000/- Mental Pain and sufferings ₹ 20,000/- Special Diet ₹ 20,000/- Total ₹ 1,79,356/- 17. Now the appellants/claimants shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 1,79,356/- instead of ₹ 87,356/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. 7 / 7 The amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount paid to the appellant-claimant pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 18. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn