1 2025:CGHC:40921 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1652 of 2024 Shrimati Kala Bai Bareth W/o Jhaduram Bareth, Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Barapipar, Dabhara, Police Station-Dabhara, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant/Applicant versus 1 - Aagaley Kumar Son S/o Sumanlal Son, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Barapipar, Dabhara, Police Station-Dabhara, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 2 - Sumanlal Son S/o Late Nanki, Aged About 65 Years R/o Civil Line, Dharamjaygarh, District Raigarh, Currently Residing At Barapipar, Dabhara, Police Station-Dabhara, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. (Owner) 3 - Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Number 403, Fourth Floor, Db City Corporate Part, Plot No. 1, Bolck No. 9, Rajbandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company) ... Respondents/Non-applicants For Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent no. 3 : Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate appears on ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.09.09 11:27:21 +0530 2 behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu) Judgment on board 13.08.2025 1. Appellant-claimant 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 25.06.2024 passed by Learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakti, District- Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 64/2022, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act of1988 in part and awarded total sum of Rs. 5,91,000/- as compensation in motor accidental injury case. 2. Involvement of the vehicle driven by non-applicant no. 1, owned by non-applicant no. 2 and insured by non-applicant no. 3 is not disputed. The motor accidental injuries suffered by the appellant is also not in dispute and, therefore, this Court is not entering into factual aspects of the case with regard to the manner in which the accident occurred and treatment taken by the appellant/claimant for his injuries and is only considering the ground raised in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation and submission of the counsel for the respective parties of both the sides on it. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in a motor accident, claimant suffered severe injuries including dislocation of right hip, fracture of multiple ribs and fracture of right lower end tibia and fibula bone. After taking treatment from the hospital for considerable period when injuries of the claimant could not recover fully, she approached 3 the Competent Authority for obtaining disability certificate, upon which, disability certificate was issued by the Medical Board, Janjgir-Champa mentioning 45% of permanent disability due to right hip dislocation, right iliac blade fracture, left superior and inferior pubic rami fracture, right tibial plafond fracture, right bimalleolar fracture and weakness below lower limb. However, learned Claims Tribunal assessed loss of earning capacity of appellant up to 30% only without giving any rational reason for it. He contended that claimant was admittedly working as laborer for earning her livelihood and disability suffered by her will affect grossly in her earning capacity, therefore, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed loss of earning to the extent of the percentage of physical disability as mentioned in physical disability certificate Ex. P-01. He next contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation under other heads as specified by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd reported in (1995) 1 SCC 551. He submits that learned Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and suffering which is also less, looking to the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant/appellant. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head of loss of income during the period of treatment, attendant etc. He submits that amount of compensation be enhanced suitably. 4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company opposes the submission and would submit that compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal in the facts of case is just and proper and does not call for any interference. He submits that entire medical bill has been awarded and further Tribunal has also considered that the driver and owner of the 4 offending vehicle have paid Rs. 5,91,000/- prior to passing of award to the claimant/appellant. 5. At this stage, counsel for the appellant would submit that the amount stated to be paid by owner and driver of the offending vehicle has already been adjusted from the total amount of compensation computed by the learned Claims Tribunal of Rs. 6,53,746/-. This appeal is for enhancement on the heads as mentioned in the case of R.D. Hattangadi (supra). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 7. It is not in dispute that the appellant suffered multiple fractures over her person. Looking to the nature of injury i.e. dislocation of rib, fracture of right clavicle bone, fracture of L-one with weakness in the lower limbs, in the opinion of this Court, the claimant will not be able to perform any work for a period of about 6 months and, therefore, for the purpose of assessing loss of earning during the treatment, I find it appropriate to consider period of six months to compute compensation towards loss of earning during the period of treatment. It is ordered accordingly. 8. The claimant was shown to be 60 years at the time of accident and her occupation to be laborer. Accident is dated 07.04.2022. Claimant has pleaded his income to be Rs. 5,000/- per month, therefore, she will be entitled for compensation of Rs. 30,000/- (Rs. 5,000 x 6) towards loss of earning during period of treatment. 9. Loss of earning capacity is to be considered looking to the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant on her person. In every case application of the formula to calculate the loss of earning may not apply with full force, however, if the claimant suffered hip dislocation, multiple 5 fractures of ribs, fracture of L one resulting in the weakness of both lower limbs fracture of clavicle bone etc., in the opinion of this Court, the claimant would have suffered loss of earning more than what is assessed by the Claims Tribunal i.e. 30%. No straight jacket formula can be applied for assessing loss of earning capacity but sometimes looking to the nature of injuries and considering the evidence of the doctor and also nature of occupation which the claimant/injured was doing prior to the date of accident, some guess work is required to be done. 10. Dr. Praful Chauhan was examined as AW-02, in his evidence he stated that while examining the claimant he found dislocation of right hip injury, fracture of spinal bone, fracture of L-one, fracture of right knee and weakness on both the lower limbs. Though he stated that by passage of time there are chances of improvement in the condition of fracture and weakness suffered on lower limb, however, from the evidence it is not reflecting that it will be cured fully. On the date of accident, the claimant was aged about 60 years, at such advance age the chances of recovery decreases and, therefore, for considering the award of compensation, all attending circumstances are to be kept in mind. 11. For the foregoing discussion, I find it appropriate to assess loss of earning capacity of claimant/injured to be 40%. It is ordered accordingly. 12. In view of above, I find it appropriate to recompute the compensation awarded under the head loss of earning capacity due to permanent disability suffered by the claimant which is as under:- 6 ▪ Accordingly, the monthly income of deceased is taken as Rs. 5,000/- and annual comes to Rs. 60,000/-. By applying multiplier of 9, as applied by learned Claims Tribunal, total amount of compensation under the head of loss of future earning would come to Rs. 5,40,000/-. As the claimant has suffered 40% permanent disability, as held above, the loss of future earning suffered by appellant would come to Rs. 2,16,000/- (40% of 5,40,000/-). It is ordered accordingly. 13. Looking to the injuries the amount of compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering and the permanent disability suffered by him, in the opinion of this Court appears to be less. The claimant has to live rest of his life with disability suffered by her and, therefore, I find it appropriate to enhance the amount of compensation awarded toward pain and suffering from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. 14. In the case of R.D. Hattangadi (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with injury case has specified the heads on which the compensation can be awarded and held as under: “Broadly speaking while fixing the amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant:(i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include:(i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in the future; (ii) damages to compensate for loss of amenities of life which ma include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit;(iii) damages for loss of expectation of 7 life i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustation and mental stress in life.” 15. In view of the aforementioned decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court if the facts of the case are to be considered the claimant is aged about 60 years, she may not be able to enjoy her physical life and social life like an ordinary women of her age group, therefore, I find it appropriate to award Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of amenities in life and Rs. 15,000/- towards inconvenience, hardship which she will face due to permanent disability suffered by her in rest of her life. The amount of compensation under the head special diet is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- from Rs. 10,000/- . The compensation awarded of Rs. 10,000/- towards travelling expenses in the facts of the case is affirmed. 16. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards attendant. Considering the nature of injuries, she might have required help of some other person at least for a period of three months, therefore, I find it appropriate to award compensation of Rs. 15,000/- towards the attendant. 17. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellant-claimant requires re-computation, which is as under. Particular Compensation Monthly Income Rs. 5,000/- Annual Income (Rs. 5,000/- x 12) Rs. 60,000/- Multiplier of 09 (Rs. 60,000/- x 9) Rs. 5,40,000/- Permanent disability @ 40% ( 40% of 5,40,000/-) Rs. 2,16,000/- Loss of income during 06 months Rs. 30,000/- 8 (Rs. 5,000/- x 6) Pain and suffering Rs. 30,000/- Medical Bill Rs. 4,31,046/- Loss of Amenities Rs. 20,000/- Inconvenience Rs. 15,000/- Transportation Rs. 10,000/- Special Diet Rs. 15,000/- Attendant Rs. 15,000/- Total Rs.7,82,046/- 18. Now the appellant/claimant shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 7,82,046/- instead of ₹ 5,91,000/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. 19. Any amount paid to the appellant-claimant pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. Rest of the conditions as imposed by the Claims Tribunal in the impugned award shall remain intact. 20. 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) alfiza Judge