1 2025:CGHC:22784 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1757 of 2019 Mangal Prasad Pandey S/o Shri Manharan Prasad Pandey Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Darri Post Temari Police Station Maro District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. Present Address Q.No. E/600 H.T.P.P. Colony Kailash Vihar Police Station Darri Tahsil Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1 - Ramshiroman @ Badaku S/o Biru Aged About 55 Years R/o Q.No. G/52 Bhalumara Gatedafai Police Station Bhalumara Kotma Colliery District Anuppur Madhya Pradesh. (Driver Of The Vehicle), District : Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh 2 - The Deport Officers S.E.C.L. Address Regional Store S.E.C.L. J And K Area Post Jamuna Colliery Kotma Police Station Kotma District Anuppur Shahdol Madhya Pradesh. (Owner Of Vehicle). 3 - The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Office Station Road Seetamani Korba Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh (Insurance), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Address Vishranti Melaram Tower No. 2/310 Rajeev Gandhi Salay (Omr) Karapakkam Chennai - 60097 (Insurance Co.). --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Praveen Kumar Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Vaibhav Kartikeya Agrawal, on behalf of Mr. Om Prakash Agrawal. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Asheesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No.4 ; Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 09/06/2025 1. Claimant/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District – Korba (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 22.06.2019 passed in Claim Case No.59/2018 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.12,18,280/- as compensation in an injury case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on the date of incident, appellant was driving Omni vehicle bearing registration number CG 12/AJ-6054 from Power City towards Jailgaon Chowk at that time, a truck bearing registration number MP 18/GA-1598, coming from Korba and being driven in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the said Omni vehicle. As a result of the accident, appellant sustained injuries on both legs, head, hand, forehead, and stomach. He was immediately admitted to NTPC Hospital, Korba and looking to his severe condition he was referred to Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur. Due to the accident, both the legs of the appellant got fractured. 3. Appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.34,00,000/- pleading therein that at the time of accident he was aged about 24 years, was doing private job and earning Rs.9,000/- per month. Due to the said accident, appellant suffered permanent disablement and unable to perform his work in the manner he was doing prior to accident. Claimant had also sought compensation under all other heads as are available to her like medical expenses, special diet, future medical expenses, pain and sufferings etc. 4. Non-applicant Nos.1 & 2/driver and owner of offending vehicle, submitted reply and resisted the claim. It was pleaded that the 3 accident was result of self negligence of the appellant. It was further pleaded that at that time, respondent No.1 was having valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. The vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.3 and there was no breach of policy condition. Amount of compensation as claimed by appellant is highly exaggerated. It was pleaded that in case, claimants are entitled for compensation, then respondent No.3 shall be liable to pay the compensation. 5. Non-applicant No.3-Insurer of offending vehicle, submitted reply to claim application, while denying the pleadings made therein, has further pleaded that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was being driven in breach of condition of insurance policy, hence, insurance company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 6. Upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, learned Claims Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1, due to which the appellant suffered injuries. Breach of Policy condition was not found to be proved. Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.12,18,280/- along with interest @ 7% per annum, fastened liability upon non-applicant No.3/respondent No.3-Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation. 7. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation. He contended that the learned Claims Tribunal though assessed the permanent disability, however, permanent disability was assessed as only 17.72% 4 erroneously contrary to the percentage of the disability mentioned in the disability Certificate Ex-P-1, wherein permanent disability is mentioned as 44.30%. He next contended that learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under the head of loss of income during laid down period and further Rs.15,000/- has been jointly awarded towards future medical expenses, for conveyance, pain and suffering, special diet and for attendant apart from the medical expenses as assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal based on bills. 8. Learned counsel for respective respondents opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that the amount of compensation awarded is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 also stated that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of injured as Rs.8450/- treating him to be a labourer in absence of admissible piece of evidence with respect to nature of employment of driver and the income as pleaded in the claim application of Rs.9000/- per month. It is contended that the amount awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is on proper appreciation of the documentary and oral evidence brought on record, which does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. So far as the first grounds raised by learned counsel for appellant with respect to the assessment of income of the appellant as pleaded in the claim application as Rs.9000/- from the work of driver is concerned, the appellant has not got examined the employer or the owner of the 5 vehicle which he was driving on the date of accident. The appellant has also not produced the driving licence in support of his claim with respect to the nature of employment as driver. When a person is engaged as professional driver and driving the vehicle then he should possess the effective driving license which the appellant has not produced, therefore, the pleadings in the claim application and the statement of the appellant that he was working as driver and was earning Rs.9000/- per month cannot be accepted. The learned Claims Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the statement of the appellant with respect to the nature of employment as driver, hence, I do not find any error in the said finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 11. So far as the award of compensation under other head to the tune of Rs.20,000/- is concerned, the learned Claims Tribunal has not discussed separately as to under what heads and what amount of compensation has been awarded. 12. From the documents Ex.P-13 & Ex.P-14 it is appearing that the appellant was admitted in the hospital initially on 27.12.2017 and discharged on 12.01.2018 and thereafter, he was again admitted in the hospital on 23.01.2018 and discharged on 25.01.2018. Document Ex.P-100, which is the discharge summary of the Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur mentioned the course of treatment in the hospital under head of “Course In The Hospital. This discharge summary appears to be after treatment of the compound fracture injuries suffered by the appellant over his right leg and left leg. The appellant suffered the fracture injury over the right and left leg which is mentioned in the discharge summary as under :- 6 “Patient Mr. Mangal Pandey, 24 Y/M who is a followup case of compound injury right leg with fracture both bone with external fixator and compound injury left leg with fracture both bone with POP slab. Now admitted for skin grafting.” 13. The appellant suffered grievous injuries over his person. He suffered compound fracture on his both the legs i.e. right and left leg. Considering the nature of injury suffered and the treatment from the Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur, in the opinion of this court the appellant could not able to perform his duties for about three months. The learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of income during the period of treatment and therefore, in the opinion of this Court the appellant is entitled for the compensation for the loss of income during the period of treatment i.e. for three months, which comes to Rs.8450 x 3 = 25,350/-. 14. Looking to the nature of injuries, the appellant must have required and taken the help of assistant, therefore, under the head of attendant of the appellant during the period of treatment and thereafter, I find it appropriate to award Rs.10,000/- under the said head. Appellant is also entitled for Rs.10,000/- for special diet and Rs.25,000/- against pains and suffering. It is ordered accordingly. 15. The learned Claims Tribunal considering the disablement to the extent of 17.72% and assessing the income of the appellant as Rs.8,450/- and also adding 40% towards the loss of future prospectus, calculated the amount of compensation under the loss of income as Rs.4,52,796/- which in the opinion of this Court is just and proper, which does not cal for any interference. 7 16. The learned Claims Tribunal has also awarded Rs.7,45,484/- towards medical bills as the learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed the award of the medical bills, the said amount of compensation is also does not call for any interference. 17. The appellant is resident of Korba and he has taken treatment from Apollo Hospital Bilaspur, therefore, in the opinion of this Court he is also entitled for Rs.10,000/- for the conveyance expenditure. It is ordered accordingly. 18. On the basis of above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :- S.N. Head Amount. 1. For medical expenses : Rs. 7,45,484/- 2. Loss of income during the period of treatment i.e. for three months (Rs.8450 x 3 months) : Rs. 25,350/- 3. For attendant : Rs. 10,000.00 4. For special diet : Rs. 10,000.00 5. For pain and suffering : Rs. 25,000.00 6. For loss of income : Rs. 4,52,796.00 7. For Transportation/Conveyance : Rs. 10,000.00 Total Compensation : Rs. 12,78,630.00 19. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellant shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.12,78,630.00. Any amount paid to the appellant as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per 8 annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 20. 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