1 2025:CGHC:32107 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1609 of 2018 1 - Kamalnayan Das @ Laxmikant S/o Shri Kripa Sindhudas, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Paraskol, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Salim Khan S/o Late Shri Rahim Khan, R/o Ward No. 4, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh........(Driver), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2 - Bajrang Lal Agrawal, S/o Shri Premchand Agrawal Aged About 38 Years R/o Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.............(Owner), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - Divisional Manager (Do-I) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Madina Manjil, Kachheri Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh...........(Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 10/07/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 16.05.2017 passed by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 79/2015. 2. The averment in the claim petition, in brief, is that on 08.05.2013, the appellant was returning home to Paraskol on his motorcycle after ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 purchasing medicines. At that time, a truck coming from the opposite direction collided with the motorcycle of appellant, causing a serious accident. As a result, the appellant sustained grievous injuries to his right leg, thigh, hands, head, and other parts of his body. Immediately after the accident, the appellant was taken to Government Hospital, Raipur, and later admitted to Ramkrishna Hospital, Raipur from 04.07.2013 to 08.07.2013. At the time of the accident, the appellant was 15 years old and working as a B-Class Electrical Fitting Contractor, earning approximately Rs. 20,000 per month. Due to his injuries, he filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal, seeking compensation under various heads. Respondents No. 1 and 2 contested the petition by filing a written statement, stating that the vehicle involved was duly insured with the Insurance Company and that respondent No.1 had a valid driving license at the time of the accident, thereby shifting the liability onto the Insurance Company. Medical reports indicate that the appellant sustained a fracture in his leg and was temporarily disabled to the extent of 40%, as certified by the Medical Board at Mahasamund. Though treated at Ramkrishna Hospital for approximately 12-15 days, the appellant has not fully recovered to date. The appellant claimed a total compensation of Rs. 27,47,000 on account of loss of income, medical expenses, and other related heads. The respondents disputed the extent of injuries and the amount claimed. The Insurance Company, respondent No. 3, further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess an effective driving license issued by the concerned RTO, thus denying their liability. The learned Claims Tribunal, after evaluating the evidence, held that the disability of appellant amounted 3 to only 10% temporary disablement and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,92,500 with 7% interest from the date of filing till realization. The Tribunal also held the Insurance Company liable to indemnify the award. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is grossly inadequate and fails to truly reflect the losses and sufferings endured by the injured claimant. It was submitted that the Tribunal did not properly assess the monthly income of appellant at the time of the accident, which was Rs. 20,000 as a B- Class Electrical Fitting Contractor, and consequently undervalued the loss of future earnings and the prospects of enhanced income due to his young age and the nature of his work. It is further argued that the extent of injury and disability sustained by the appellant has been substantially underestimated by the Tribunal. Medical evidence clearly indicates that the appellant sustained grievous injuries resulting in a permanent disability of approximately 30%, whereas the Tribunal restricted the compensation for temporary disability to merely 10%. Such an approach ignores the long-term physical, mental, and financial impact on the life of appellant. The hospitalization period, spanning approximately 11 days, was given only scant consideration with minimal compensation awarded for medical expenses, transportation, and attendant charges. The appellant had to incur considerable expenses on special diet and medical care, which have not been adequately compensated. The pain, suffering, and trauma endured by the appellant as a result of the accident are likewise insufficiently recognized in the compensation amount. Moreover, learned counsel 4 for the appellant highlighted that the Tribunal failed to consider future prospects for enhancement of income, which is justified given the young age of appellant of 15 at the time of the accident and his capacity for growth in his profession. The appellant also suffered loss of amenities and quality of life, which merit separate consideration. It was thus submitted that all heads of damages such as loss of income, medical expenses, transportation, attendant charges, pain and suffering, and future prospects require significant upward revision. The appellant prayed that the compensation be enhanced substantially to a sum that would fairly and adequately compensate him for his injuries, losses, and hardships. 4. In response, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 - Insurance Company, contended that the learned Claims Tribunal had properly evaluated all aspects of the case and awarded a just and reasonable compensation to the appellant. It was submitted that the finding of Tribunal of 10% temporary disability is supported by medical evidence and cannot be lightly set aside or increased without sufficient proof. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 argued that the claim of appellant for permanent disability and higher future prospects is speculative and not backed by conclusive medical reports. The respondent challenged the extent of disability claimed and emphasized that the appellant had been treated and discharged within a short period, indicating that the injuries were not as severe as alleged. Further, the Insurance Company contested the claimed amounts for transportation, special diet, attendant charges, and pain and suffering, stating that these heads have been awarded generously considering 5 the circumstances of the case. The respondents also relied on the fact that the appellant’s occupation involved contractual work with variable income and that no concrete evidence was produced to prove consistent monthly earnings of Rs. 20,000 or prospects of future enhancement. Lastly, learned counsel reiterated that the award passed by the Claims Tribunal was in accordance with law and established precedents on similar facts and that there was no ground for interference or enhancement. The respondent No. 3 therefore prayed that the appeal be dismissed, and the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal be upheld. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the record. 6. Upon careful examination of the facts and submissions, the Court finds merit in the plea of appellant for enhancement of compensation. The evidence establishes that the appellant, then 15 years old and earning approximately Rs. 20,000 per month as a B-Class Electrical Fitting Contractor, sustained grievous injuries resulting in a significant temporary disability, with medical certification indicating around 40% disability. The original award of Rs. 1,92,500 by the Claims Tribunal, which assessed only 10% temporary disablement and limited compensation for various heads such as loss of income, medical expenses, and pain and suffering, was found to be inadequate. Considering the prolonged hospitalization, incomplete recovery, permanent disability, and additional future prospects, the Court recognizes that the compensation must be enhanced to fairly address all losses suffered by the appellant. 6 7. Accordingly, the Court enhances the total compensation to Rs. 6,40,992/- covering loss of income, medical expenses, transportation, pain and suffering, special diet, attendant charges, and additional income loss in the following manner : Minimum Wages for unskilled worker 4,943/- Gross annual income 4,943 x 12 x 40% Future Prospect Loss of Income (30%of 83,042/-) 24,912/- Multiplier x 16 (age 35 years) 24,912 x 16 Rs. 59,316/- 24,912/- --------------- 83,042/- Rs. 3,98,592/- Medical Bills Rs. 1,35,600/- Transportation Rs. 21,000/- Loss of income of 11 days (Rs. 200 x 11) Rs. 2,200/- Pain and Sufferings Rs. 50,000/- Special Diet Rs. 20,000/- Attendant Rs. 5,000/- Loss of Amenities Rs. 8,600/- Total Rs. 6,40,992/- 8. In light of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced from Rs. 1,92,500/- to Rs. 6,40,992/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of actual payment. The balance amount, if any, already deposited or paid shall be duly adjusted. The impugned award dated 16.05.2017 is accordingly modified to the extent stated hereinabove. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Gopal Singh/Saxena JUDGE