1 2025:CGHC:29052 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1572 of 2019 1 - Prafull Kumar S/o Samaruram Ratrey Aged About 28 Years R/o Village - Bagdehipara, Tarri Road Nayapara, Post Office And Police Station - Nayyapara Gobra, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Narendra S/o Radheshyam Sen, R/o Village - Navgai, Police Station - Chura District - Gariyabandh Chhattisgarh. ( Driver Of Car No. C.G. 04 H A - 1302), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Dinesh Kumar S/o Janakram Dewangan, R/o Village - Saragaon, Police Station - Chura District - Gariyabandh Chhattisgarh. ( Owner Of Car No. C.G. 04 H A - 1302), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 3 - The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through - Divisional Manager, The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Kachari Chowk, Tahsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer Of Car No. C.G. 04 H A - 1302), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Satyendra Shriwas, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Aakash Shrivastava, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 30/06/2025 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 07.01.2019 passed by the VIIIth Additional Motor Accident 2 Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 324/2015. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 27.02.2015 at about 02:20 P.M., a report was lodged in Police Station – Gobra-Nawapara, Raipur bearing Crime No. 46/2015 by the applicant/claimant stating that Non- Applicant/Respondent No. 1 was driving his car bearing registration no. CG 04 DS 9569 in a rash and negligent manner dashed his motorcycle bearing registration no. CG 04 HA 1302, near village Basantpur and caused accident. In the said accident, appellant suffered serious injuries. Because of motor accidental injuries, he suffered permanent disability. 3. The applicant/claimant has pleaded in his claim application that on the date of accident, the applicant was aged about 28 years, he was the only bread-winner of his family. He was working as a Munshi (Clerk) in a rice mill, was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month. In the, motor accident, claimant suffered multiple severe injuries resulting in permanent disability, claimed Rs. 28,75,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 12% per annum. 4. The Non-Applicant No. 1 & 2 submitted their reply to the claim application pleading that the Non-applicant No. 1 is Driver and the Non- Applicant No. 2 is owner of the offending vehicle. The Non-applicant No. 1 was possessing valid and effective driving license and the Non- applicant No. 2 was also having the valid permit and fitness of the vehicle. On the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the Non-Applicant No. 3 and therefore, liability if any, will be of Non- Applicant No. 3. 3 5. The Non-Applicant/Respondent No. 3 in its reply pleaded that it was the applicant/claimant himself who was driving the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner caused accident. Neither the applicant nor the Non-Applicant No. 1 was possessing valid and effective driving license. Injuries suffered by the applicant/claimant are not the motor accidental injuries, he has not suffered any permanent disability. Further, the Non- Applicant No. 3 pleaded that, on the date of accident, Non-Applicant No. 2 was not having the valid and effective permit or fitness certificate to ply the offending vehicle and therefore, the Non-Applicant No. 3 is not liable to satisfy the amount of compensation. 6. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the facts and evidence brought on record allowed the application in part, awarded Rs. 4,15,813/- as compensation and fastened the liability upon the Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company to satisfy the amount of compensation. 7. Learned counsel for appellant submits that that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding total amount of compensation of Rs. 4,15,813/- only. The Tribunal has not assessed the income as pleaded in the claim application of Rs. 9,000/- per month from the work of Munshi, assessed income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/- per month only on notional basis. He contended that even if the claimant failed to prove the nature of employment, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased treating him to be an Unskilled Labourer assessing his income as fixed by the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The Tribunal has considered the loss of earning capacity to the extent of Rs. 15% only overlooking the Disability Certificate of 40%. Further, the amount of compensation awarded under the other heads is also on lower side and no amount of compensation is awarded towards the loss of earning during the laid down period. 4 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 vehemently opposes the submission made by the counsel for the appellant and would submit that the amount of compensation awarded of Rs. 4,15,813/- which is just and proper in the facts of the case. Learned Claims Tribunal has considered the permanent disability suffered by the claimant and have assessed loss of earning capacity considering the nature of injury and the part of body affected in such injury i.e. the right hand. Hence, the impugned awarded does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the claim case. 10.So far as the first submission made by the counsel for the appellant that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the appellant/claimant of Rs. 5,000/- per month is concerned, the claimant in the claim application has pleaded his work to be one of Munshi in Rice Mill. However, no admissible piece of evidence has been brought on record to prove his employment in the rice mill. 11. In the aforementioned facts of the case, where the claimant failed to prove the nature of occupation and his income, the learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing the occupation of the appellant/claimant to be of Unskilled Labourer, however, assessed income on lower side. There is no suggestive evidence to show the wage rate prevailing in the area on which, the appellant is residing. Hence, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the appellant taking help of the minimum- wages as fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and prevailing in the State of Chhattigarh. According to the notification issued by the competent authority for the period of 5 01.10.2014 to 31.03.2015, it mentions the wages of an Unskilled Labourer as Rs. 5,617/- per month. Hence, the income of the appellant is assessed as Rs. 5,617/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 12.The learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the loss of earning capacity to the extent of 15% which does not call for any interference. The Claims Tribunal has added loss of future prospects to the extent of 40% which is in consonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sidram Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr. reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 which does not call for any interference. Hence, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal in assessing the future prospects to the extent of 40% is hereby, affirmed. 13.Further, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,41,613/- towards the medical expenses. Learned counsel for the appellant could not be able to point out that the said amount as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal towards the medical expenses is erroneous in any way. Hence, the finding of the learned Claims Tribunal against the award of medical expenses does not call for any interference and is hereby, affirmed. 14. In the facts of the case and discussions as observed, I find appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation. 15.In the case at hand, the age of the deceased is 28 years and therefore, there shall enhancement of 40% of the assessed income towards the loss of future prospects. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 7864/- (5617 + 2247) and the yearly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 94,368/- (7864 X 12). The 6 appellant is aged about 28 years and therefore, the multiplier of 17 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 applicable, which makes the total income of the deceased as Rs. 16,04,256/- (94,368 X 17). As this Court has assessed the loss of earning of the appellant to the extent of 15% and therefore, the 15% of the loss of income would come to Rs. 240638.4/- (15% of 16,04,256). 16.Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded the amount of compensation under the head of loss of income during the laid down period. Looking to the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant, I find it appropriate to hold that the applicant couldn’t be able to work for the period of 02 months and therefore, the appellant is entitled for Rs. 11,234/- (5617 X 2) as loss of income during the laid down period. The claimant will further e entitled for compensation under the head of medical expenses of Rs. 1,41,613/- and further, Rs. 60,000/- towards the special diet, conveyance and attendant as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly 17.Now, the appellant/claimant will be entitled for the total amount of compensation which is as under:- • Rs. 453485.4/- [240638.4 (loss of income) + 1,41,613 (medical expenses) + 60,000 (special diet, attendant and pains and sufferings) + 11,234 (loss of income during laid down period)} 18.This enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 7 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