1 2025:CGHC:38796 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 20 of 2021 Sunil Kumar Sidar, S/o. Bahoranlal Sidar, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Gram Panchayat Podi (Bh), Police Station- Sakri, Tahsil- Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). --- Appellant versus 1 - Narsingh Kashyap (Kurmi) S/o Dhaniram Kashyap Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Podi (Dalha), Police Station- Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) (Driver Of The Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C.G.-11 Ap-6399), 2 - Libarti General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office- Mittal Complex, 1st Floor, Near St Bank, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaswpur, District - Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) (Insurer Of The Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C.G.-11 Ap-6399). --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vipin Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : None present though served. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 05/08/2025 1. Claimant/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 17.01.2020, passed in Claim Case No.276/2019 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.50,000/- as compensation in an injury case. BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.01 10:55:45 +0530 2 2. Motor accidental injuries suffered by claimant/appellant, involvement of the motor cycle No.C.G.-11AP-6399 (offending vehicle), owned and driven by non-applicant No.1 and insured by non-applicant No.2 is not in dispute. Liability fastened on non-applicant No.2 to satisfy the award is also undisputed. Therefore, this Court is not entering into the factual aspects of the case and is only considering the submissions made by learned counsel for respective parties seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded sufficient compensation. Heads under which, compensation is awarded in injury case are pains and suffering, loss of income during period of treatment, special diet, attendant and conveyance. He submits that accident is dated 15.11.2018, however, learned Claims Tribunal assessed income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month only instead of Rs.8,000/- as notified by competent authority under the Minium Wages Act, 1948. He submits that compensation be suitably enhanced on other heads also. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company, however, he supported the impugned award. 5. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2 even after service of notice. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of claim case. 3 7. Perusal of the documents of treatment of the motor accidental injuries suffered by appellant (Ex.P-6, Ex.P-7, Ex.P-8 and Ex.P-9 would show that claimant suffered fracture of shaft of femur right side. He was admitted to the hospital for about 6 days. Claims Tribunal considered that appellant could not perform his work for about four months for his earning and assessed the compensation towards loss of income during treatment as Rs.24,000/-, assessing his monthly income as Rs.6,000/- per month. Learned Claims Tribunal considered occupation of the injured to be labourer, however to assess income as Rs.6000/- per month, has not recorded any reason. In absence of proof of income, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken help of minimum wages fixed by competent authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 8. The accident is dated 15.11.2018 and minimum wages fixed by competent authority for period from 01.10.2018 to 31.03.2019 for unskilled labourer of C-zone area was Rs.8,140/-, therefore, I find it appropriate to determine income of appellant as Rs.8,140/-. 9. Labourer has to do heavy work, including lifting of heavy articles and to shift it at different places, therefore, looking to the nature of injuries, suffered, appellant may not have performed his work for about six months, therefore, compensation towards loss of earning for period of six months would be Rs.8,140 x 6 = 48,840/-. Looking to the nature injuries, compensation awarded towards pain and suffering is enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. The amount awarded under other heads are just and proper, which does not call for any interference. 4 10. On the basis of above, compensation to be awarded needs recomputation, which is as under :- SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. For loss of income during laid down period : 48,840.00 2. For pain and suffering : 15,000.00 3. For special diet : 5,000.00 4. For attendant : 5,000.00 5. For conveyance : 6,000.00 Grand Total : 79,840.00 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellant shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.79,840.00. Any amount paid to the appellant as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 12. 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 Balram