1 2025:CGHC:37473 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1820 of 2019 1 - Milau Sonkar S/o Rama Sonkar, Aged About 44 Years R/o Killa Para, Ward No. 2, Simga, Post Office And Police Station Simga, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh, --- Appellant versus 1 - Ravindra Kumar Singh (Father Of The Respondent No.1 Not Mentioned In The Impugned Award Dated 08/02/2019), R/o Chourasiya Bhawan, Near Shanta Sweets, Bhanpuri, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh......(Non Applicant No. 1) (Driver Of Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. Cg/04/hy/5477) 2 - Sujeet Kumar Singh S/o Virendar Singh, R/o Chourasiya Bhawan, Near Shanta Sweets, Bhanpuri, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Non Applicant No. 2) (Registered Owner Of Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. Cg/04/hy/5477), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The United India Assurance/insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager (Division No. 1), Divisional Office, The United India Assurance/insurance Company Limited, Address- Kutchery Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. Cg/04/hy/5477). --- Respondents For Appellant : Ms. Pooja Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Respondents No.3 : Mr. G.V.K. Rao, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 31/07/2025 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 Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District – Raipur (for short ‘the BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.12 11:06:07 +0530 2 Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 08.02.2019 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.451/2016 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.7,68,438/- as compensation in an injury case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that a claim application U/s.166 of the Act, 1988 was filed by the applicant/injured, against the injury suffered by him in the road accident pleading therein that on 16/01/16 at about 7:00 a.m., near Bemetara Chowk, Simga, applicant riding his bicycle on the left side of the road, reached near Khalil Hotel, Bemetara Chowk, non-applicant No. 1, driving the truck bearing registration No. CG 04-HY/5477 (hereinafter referred as ‘offending vehicle’) in a rash and negligent manner dashed bicycle of applicant and caused accident. As a result, applicant suffered serious injuries in his right leg. During treatment, his right leg above the knee was amputated. Consequently, applicant became permanently disabled. It was pleaded that, the deceased was working as mason and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month and because of the injuries suffered in accident he is unable to perform his work. Claimant had also sought compensation under other heads as are available to him like medical expenses, special diet, future medical expenses, pain and sufferings etc. 3. Non-applicant No.1 did not appear and he was remained ex-parte before the Claims Tribunal. Non-applicant No.2 submitted reply and resisted the claim. It was denied that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. It was pleaded that accident occurred due to negligence of the applicant himself. On the date of accident, non-applicant No.1 was holding valid and effective 3 driving licence to drive the vehicle, it was duly insured with respondent No.3 and there was no breach of policy condition. In case, appellant is found entitled for compensation, then respondent No.3 will be liable to pay the compensation. 4. Non-applicant No.3-Insurer of offending vehicle, submitted reply to claim application denying the pleadings made therein. Appellant met with accident due to his own negligence. Non-applicant No.1 was not having valid and effective licence to drive offending vehicle, there was breach of condition of insurance policy, hence, insurance company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.7,68,438/- and fastened the liability upon non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company to indemnify the insured. 6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation. It is submitted that learned Claims Tribunal failed to consider the evidence brought on record regarding income of appellant and assessed the income of the appellant on lower side. It is contended that due to the accident, right leg of the appellant was amputated above the knee and he suffered 60% permanent disablement but functional disability is more. Claims Tribunal failed to award compensation towards future prospects to the appellant. Compensation awarded under other head is also much on lower side. He prays that amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 4 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant. He would submit that the learned Tribunal awarded just and proper compensation on each and every head. It is submitted that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is on proper appreciation of facts and evidence brought on record by the respective parties, which does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. It is not in dispute that as a result of the road accident, appellant suffered severe injuries to his right leg, leading to the amputation of his right leg above knee. According to disability certificate (Ex.P-90) appellant suffered 60% permanent disability. 10. So far as the grounds raised by learned counsel for appellant with regard to assessment of income is concerned, though there is pleading in the claim application that appellant was working as Mason and thereby earning Rs.12,000/- per month, however, there is no clinching and admissible evidence to prove the said pleadings. In absence of evidence with respect to the occupation and income of the claimant, learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing income of the claimant/injured on notional basis, however, the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of claimant as Rs.5,000/- per month only overlooking the date of accident as 16.01.2016. For assessing the income of the on notional basis, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration factors like rise in price index, place of resident, date of accident and the wages prevailing at the place where deceased was resident of. The learned Claims 5 Tribunal could have also taken note of minium wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. 11. In the case at hand, there is no suggesting evidence to prove the wages prevailing on the date of accident at the place where the appellant was resident of. Hence, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the appellant treating him to be labourer taking help of the minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for that period. The minimum wages fixed by the authority for the period from 01.10.2015 to 31.03.2016 for unskilled labour is Rs.5,860/- per month. Hence, the income of the appellant is assessed as Rs.5,860/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 12. Perusal of the impugned award would show that income towards future prospects is not added to the assessed income. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sidram Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439 has settled the law with respect to grant of future prospects in case of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor accident. As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, in case where victim of road accident is between the age group of 40 to 50 on the date of accident and is self employed, 25% of assessed income is to be added towards future prospects. In the case at hand, at the time of incident, injured was 44 years of age, hence, there shall be addition of 25% towards future prospects. As the income of the injured is assessed as Rs.5,860/- per month, hence, 6 after addition of 25% towards future prospects, total monthly income of the injured comes to Rs.7,325/- (5,860 + 1,465 = 7,325) and annual income of the injured works out to Rs.87,900/-. It is ordered accordingly. 13. So far as the functional disability of the appellant is concerned, the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the functional disability of the appellant to the extent of 60% as mentioned in disability certificate (Ex.90). A person who suffers from permanent disability, particularly one who had a leg amputated above the knee, is unlikely to be able to engage as manual labourer. The physical limitations resulting from such a disability would severely hinder the individual’s ability to perform tasks that require mobility and physical strength. Therefore, it is improbable that the individual could work even at 40% of the capacity as assessed by the Claims Tribunal. 14. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sanjay Rajpoot Vs. Ram Singh, reported in LAW (SC) 2025 2 34 has considered, loss of income of a self employed person running and managing his own business suffered with the amputation of one leg above knee and assessed the functional disability of the appellant as 90% and held as under :- “10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Respondent No.3 – the insurer has not entered appearance. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and High Court on the functional disability suffered by him and also the determination of his age. The Claimant-Appellant is not salaried, but is self- employed running and managing his own business. For the Appellant to be able to effectively run his business, he is definitely required to move around. This has been 7 hampered significantly by his amputation, which proves that the functional disability of the Appellant will severely impact his earning capacity. Therefore, the correct view would be to assess the disability of the Claimant- Appellant as 90%.” 15. Considering entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and also the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court I am of the view that functional disability resulting into loss of income to the appellant who has been held to be labourer for the purpose of earning his livelihood, would be 80%. It is ordered accordingly. 16. There is no dispute with respect to the multiplier of 14 applied by the learned Claims Tribunal. 17. Accordingly, the annual income of the injured is taken as Rs.87,900/-. After applying multiplier of 14, total income of the injured comes to Rs.12,30,600/-. As the loss of income due to disability suffered by the appellant is held to the extent of 80%, the compensation has to be calculated by assessing 80% loss of income and accordingly total compensation under the head of loss earning capacity works out to Rs.9,84,480/-. Thus amount under the head of loss of income is enhanced to Rs.9,84,480/-. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards future medical expenses, which in the facts of the case is required to be enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. Looking to the nature of injury suffered, amount of Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance expenses and for special diet is required to be enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. The amount of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- towards attendant has correctly been awarded. The amount awarded towards pain and 8 suffering, attendant and expenses towards medical expenses does not call for interference. 18. Appellant was 44 years of age on the date of accident. His one of the leg was amputated above knee due to motor accidental injuries. He cannot enjoy his life and social life as an ordinary person and hence, he is also entitled for a compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities for rest of his life. It is ordered accordingly. 19. On the basis of above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :- S.N. Head Amount. (in Rs.) 1. Loss of income : 9,84,480.00 2. Future medical expenses : 40,000.00 3. For pain and suffering : 50,000.00 4. For attendant : 10,000.00 5. For special diet & conveyance : 15,000.00 6. For expenses towards treatment : 1,69,438.00 7. Loss of amenities in life : 50,000.00 Total Compensation : Rs.13,18,918.00 20. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.13,18,918.00. Any amount paid to the appellant as compensation as per award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. 9 21. 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