1 2025:CGHC:33746 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1634 of 2018 1 - Rizwan Khan S/o Shabir Khan, Aged About 22 Years At Present R/o. Kelabadi, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Rajesh Kumar Yadav S/o Ramesh Yadav, Aged About 24 Years R/o. Behind Government School, Diparapara, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Tampo No. Cg-07, Za-1384),, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sunil Kumar Sahu S/o Late Ram Singh Sahu, Aged About 40 Years R/o. Azad Chowk, Kasaridih, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Tampo No. Cg-07, Za-1384), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - The India Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Office, Parakh Bhawan, Station Road Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (Chhattisgarh), (Insurer Of Tampo No. Cg-07, Za-1384), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Sundar Lal Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate. ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17.07.2025 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the order passed by the Member 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg dated 07.08.2018 in Claim Case No.00001649/2013 (Annexure A/1). 2. As per claim application, on 19-04-2010, at approximately 4:35 PM, the appellant was struck by a tempo driven negligently by respondent No. 1, resulting in the appellant sustaining grievous injuries, including a fracture to his left leg and head injuries. The incident was reported to the Durg Police Station, District Durg. Subsequently, the appellant filed a claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of 20,00,000 on the ₹ grounds that the accident caused permanent disability, which rendered him unable to continue his employment and adversely affected his livelihood. The appellant stated before the tribunal that he was engaged in private employment earning a monthly income of 4,000. The claim was made under various heads including pain and ₹ suffering, loss of comfort, future medical treatment, medical expenses, loss of amenities, and other consequential damages. However, the learned Claims Tribunal, by its impugned award dated 07-08-2018, assessed and granted a total compensation of only 1,20,290, which the appellant contends is grossly inadequate and ₹ requires revision. Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. The Tribunal, upon careful scrutiny of the evidence presented and 3 after hearing the arguments advanced by the parties, formulated five substantive issues for determination. Following a comprehensive evaluation of the material on record, the Tribunal concluded that the claim was only partially substantiated and consequently awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 1,20,290/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand Two Hundred Ninety only) to the appellant, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, payable from the date of filing the claim until realization, holding the driver and owner jointly and severally liable for the said amount. 4. The appellant respectfully submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is manifestly inadequate and does not reflect the true extent of the injuries and losses suffered. The Tribunal failed to apply the proviso to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act appropriately while passing the award. Moreover, the Tribunal erred in neglecting to provide adequate compensation for future medical treatment, as well as in its consideration and evaluation of the medical bills and other heads of damages. The Tribunal also failed to properly account for the grievous nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant, who suffers permanent disability, which severely impacts her future prospects, including her educational and matrimonial prospects. Further, the award is conspicuously low on various other heads of claim, warranting reconsideration and enhancement in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent insurance company supports the impugned award, 4 contending that the compensation granted to the injured appellant is fair, reasonable, and in accordance with the law, and therefore does not warrant any interference by this Court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the documents available on record. 7. From perusal of the record it appears that the appellant herein has sustained grievous injuries on the various parts of the body, his left leg got fractured and also suffered head injuries I the said accident. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the injured has sustained fracture in his left leg and was admitted in Hosbital, further keeping in mind the injury sustained by injured, are grievous in nature and was not able to perform his work and sustained permanent disability of 12% as per disability certificate which is annexed as Ex.P/26 and the this Court is of the considered opinion to enhance the amount which would be modified to the extent :- Sn. Heads Calculation 01 Pain and Suffering Rs.50,000/- 02 Loss of Income Rs.1,03,680/- 03 Medical Bills Rs.2,610/- Healthy Diet Rs.10,000/- Transportation Rs.5,000/- Attender Rs.5,000/- Loss of Amenities Rs.20,000/- Total Rs.1,96,290/- 9. The amount of compensation of Rs.1,20,290/- awarded by the 5 tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,96,290/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.1,96,290/-, the claimant is held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.76,000/-, the additional amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of appeal i.e. 03.10.2018 within the period of 60 days. Rest of the terms and conditions of the Tribunal award remain intact. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Gopal Singh/Saxena