1 2025:CGHC:22921 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1703 of 2019 1 - Sandip Kukreja S/o Late Shri Yashpal Kukreja Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Old Panchayat Bodari Chakarbhata, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Fantulal Nishad S/o Shri Dashrath Lal Nishad Aged About 26 Years R/o Dhaurabhata, Police Station Hirri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle No. Cg-10c/0814)., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - M/s Bukhari Associates Link Road, Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle No. Cg. 10c/0814) ., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - National Ins. Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, First Floor, B-1, Taah Complex, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle No. Cg-10 C/0814), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. G.V.K. Rao, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 10/06/2025 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 20.02.2019 passed by the 3rd Additional Motor Accident SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 171/2015. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 01.06.2012, when the appellant on his motorcycle i.e. Bajaj Discover bearing registration no. CG 10 EP 7738 was going towards Village Belha, at that time, the offending vehicle i.e. Truck bearing registration no. CG 10 C 0814 driven by the Respondent No. 1 dashed the appellant’s motorcycle and caused accident. In the said accident, appellant suffered serious injuries, he was taken to Hospital for treatment. Subsequent to the accident, a crime was registered against the Respondent No. 1 bearing Crime No. 26/2012 at P.S. Belha, District – Bilaspur for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding a meagre sum as compensation in a permanent disability case where, the appellant suffered amputation from ankle of his right leg. Though the learned Claims Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence, pleadings and evidence brought on record had assessed the loss of income to the extent of 50%, however, the learned Claims Tribunal failed to award the amount of compensation towards loss of future prospects. He next contended that that the amount of compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and therefore, the amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respective respondents vehemently oppose the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and would submit that in the facts of the case, amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference. They also contended that 3 the learned Claims Tribunal considering the Disability Certificate (Ex. P/41) to the extent of 50% has rightly assessed the loss of income to the extent of 50% and the amount of compensation is awarded on all heads for which, the appellant is entitled for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the claim case. 6. In the facts of the case and discussions as observed, I find appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation. 7. So far as the income of the deceased and loss of earning capacity of 50% assessed by the Tribunal is not challenged. The learned Claims Tribunal has held the income of the appellant/claimant as Rs. 10,000/- per month, which is not disputed and considering that the appellant proved the loss of earning capacity to the extent of 50% has calculated the amount of compensation accordingly. However, the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation towards the loss of future prospects. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandramani Nanda Vs. Sarat Chandra Swain & Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2859 while considering the award of compensation towards the future prospects in the case of permanent disability has held that the claimant who suffer the permanent disability is also entitled for the loss of future prospects and held thus:- “ 14.3 However, the Tribunal and the High Court both have failed to consider the fact that the appellant is also entitled for enhancement on account of future prospects. Hence, in line with the law laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi10, given the age of 4 appellant was 32 years at the time of accident, he is entitled to 40% future prospects.“ In view of the aforementioned decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that where the injured/claimant suffered permanent disability, there should be addition of loss of future prospects based on the age of the deceased as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the appellant is also entitled for award of compensation under the head of loss of future prospect. 9. In the case at hand, the age of the deceased is 32 years and the appellant suffered amputation of his right leg from the ankle, resulting in 50% permanent disability, I find it appropriate to add 40% of the assessed income towards loss of future prospects and therefore, there shall be enhancement of income of 40%. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 14,000/- (10,000 + 4000) and the yearly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 1,68,000/- (14,000 X 12). The appellant is aged about 32 years and therefore, the multiplier of 16 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, therefore, the total income of the deceased would come to Rs. 26,88,000/- (1,68,000 X 16). As this Court has assessed the loss of earning of the appellant to the extent of 50% and therefore, the 50% of the loss of income would come to Rs. 13,44,000/- (50% of 26,88,000) It is ordered accordingly. 10. The learned Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs. 30,000/- towards the loss of income for the laid down period of 03 months, Rs. 50,000/- towards pains and sufferings, Rs. 25,000/- towards future medical 5 expenses which, in the opinion of this Court has been correctly awarded and does not call for any interference. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded consolidatory amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards the conveyance expense and special diet which appears to be on lower side. 11.Considering the facts of the case and nature of injury (permanent disability) to the extent of 50% and further considering that the learned Claims Tribunal has held that the appellant could not be able to perform his work for about 03 months, I find it appropriate to award Rs. 20,000/- under the head of conveyance expenses and special diet instead of Rs. 15,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. The learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards the loss of amenities in life. On the date of accident, the appellant was aged about 32 years, he has to live with the disability for the rest of his life and therefore, I am inclined to award Rs. 40,000/- towards the loss of amenities in life. 12.For the foregoing discussion, the appellant/claimant will be entitled for the total amount of compensation which is as under:- • Rs. 15,09,000/- [13,44,000 (loss of income) + 30,000 (loss of income during laid down period) + 50,000 (pains and sufferings) + 25,000 (future medical expenses) + 20,000 (conveyance and special diet + 40,000 (loss of amenities)] 13.This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 6 14.Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellant as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above. 15.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. 16.Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- -/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey