1 2025:CGHC:15123 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1765 of 2019 Ku. Himlata Dewangan D/o Awadh Ram Dewangan Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Gandai, Tehsil And Police Station- Gandai, Dist. - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Santosh S/o Nawal Ram Aged About 25 Years Driver, R/o Village Badoda Khurd, P.S. And Tehsil- Kawardha, Dist.- Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 2 - Bhagwani S/o Bahadur Patel Aged About 37 Years Owner Of Vehcile, R/o Village Bano, P.S. Sahaspur Lohara, Dist. - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh 3 - IFFCO Tokyo General Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurance Company) Branch Office New Circuit House Road, Near State Bank, Rajnandgaon, Dist.- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Deepak Kaushik, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate. 2 Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J Judgment on Board 28/03/2025 This appeal is by the injured claimant against the award dated 06-08- 2019 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (in short “the Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 49/2018 awarding total compensation of Rs.3,81,152/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till realization, fastening liability on the non-applicant No.3/insurance company jointly and severally along with non-applicant No.1/driver and non-applicant No.2/owner. 02. As per claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act of 1988”), on 21.7.2017 while the claimant was going towards Gandai on the motorcycle of one Vikas Vaishnav bearing registration No. CG 09 J 3660, on the way near a petrol pump, non-applicant No.1 by driving the vehicle Pickup bearing registration No. CG 09 JD 5264 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”) in a rash and negligent manner dashed the said motorcycle from behind as a result of which the claimant fell off the vehicle and suffered fracture of both legs as also injuries over head and hands. During treatment, rod was inserted in her legs. She remained hospitalized from 21.7.2017 to 10.8.2017 and sustained permanent disability. She pleaded that she was working on the post of Accountant in Agriculture Department, Kawardha on ad hoc basis and getting salary of Rs.14,000/- but due to accident she is unable to perform her duties. Hence she claimed a total sum of Rs.40.50 lacs as compensation under various heads. 03. Non-applicants No.1 & 2 in their written statement stated that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of rider of the motorcycle as 3 he turned the motorcycle without giving indicator. Even otherwise, the offending vehicle was duly insured with non-applicant No.3 and therefore, liability, if any, of paying compensation is of the insurance company. 04. Non-applicant No.3/insurance company in its written statement contended that rider of the motorcycle on which the claimant was sitting, was riding the motorcycle without any valid and effective driving licence in a rash and negligent manner. The claimant has made exorbitant claim on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. This apart, non-applicant No.1 was also not having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. It was also pleaded that the offending vehicle was being plied without fitness certificate and permit. Therefore, there being violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, it is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. 05. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned Tribunal after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record passed the impugned award as mentioned above. Hence this appeal by the claimant for enhancement. 06. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal was not justified in awarding meager amount of Rs.3,06,652/- towards medical treatment whereas medical bills of Rs.6 lacs were submitted before the Tribunal. The loss of earning at Rs.50,000/- assessed by the Tribunal is also unreasonable as the same was not calculated by applying the proper multiplier and adequate monthly income of the claimant. At present the appellant is unable to fine new job, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have taken 50% disability to award compensation whereas it has disbelieved the disability certificate issued by the doctor (AW-2). Learned Tribunal has also 4 failed to award compensation for non-pecuniary damages such as mental and physical shock already suffered or likely to be suffered in future, loss of amenities which may include variety of matters i.e. on account of injury she is not able to sit, walk and run, and damages for loss of expectation of life, inconvenience, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life. The amount awarded towards attendant and special diet is also on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. Thus, the impugned award is liable to be modified by enhancing the total compensation properly. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sidram Vs. the Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 968. 07. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company supports the impugned award and submits that the Tribunal considering all the relevant aspects of the matter has rightly awarded compensation which needs no interference by this Court. 08. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 09. As regards income of the claimant, she pleaded that she was working as Accountant-cum-Data Entry Operator in the Agriculture Department, Kawardha. She filed a document of Ex.P/25 issued by Nodal Officer, WCDC, Kabirdham from the office of Dy. Director, Agriculture, Kabirdham which shows her monthly salary as Rs.10,670/- As per certificate of Ex.P/24 issued by the Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer-cum-Project Officer, IWMP-7, Distt. Kabirdham, on account of she being absent from duties and her ad hoc period being not extended, she was not paid remuneration for a period from 1st July,2017 to 21st February, 2019. Learned Tribunal observed that on the 5 date of accident i.e. 21st July, 2017 she was not working as Accountant and was also not paid salary of July month. Hence considering the claimant as a skilled labour her notional income was assessed at Rs.4,500/- per month. However, in view of documents of Ex.P/24 & P/25, it is clear that the claimant was working as Accountant-cum-Data Entry Operator on ad hoc basis and due to her absence from duties and her ad hoc period being not extended she was not paid salary from 1st July, 2017 to 21st February, 2019. In view of the above, the learned Tribunal was not justified in calculating her monthly income at Rs.4,500/- on notional basis and it should have been taken as Rs.10,000/- pm. 10. The claimant stated in her evidence that she remained hospitalized for 20-25 days and rods were inserted in her legs during treatment. In cross- examination by the insurance company she admits that though she has not produced original discharge card of the hospital regarding her admission for 20-25 days but filed photocopy of the same bearing original seal and signature. She was 31 years of age at the time of accident. As per evidence of AW-2 Dr. Prakash Bhalerao the claimant suffered fracture of tibia and fibula of both legs. He was one of the members of the Medical Board and issued disability certificate of Ex.P/17 which shows that she suffered 50% permanent disability. However, the doctor admitted that this 50% disability is only for the particular affected limb and not the whole body. Learned Tribunal considering various judgments of the Supreme Court on this issue vide paras 17 to 21 of the impugned award, assessed permanent disability of the claimant for the whole body to the extent of 20%. In light of evidence on record and the case laws referred to, the said assessment cannot be faulted with. 6 11. In the matter of Sidram (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with a case of permanent disablement observed that in such cases the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future prospects as well. The compensation awarded should be just compensation inclusive of all elements that would go to place the victim in as near a position as she or he was in before the occurrence of the accident. Courts should be mindful that a serious injury not only permanently imposes physical limitations and disabilities but too often inflicts deep mental and emotional scars upon the victim. It was further observed that when compensation is to be awarded for pain and suffering, special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account including the victim’s age, the unusual deprivation the victim has suffered and the effect thereof on his or her future life. 12. Keeping in view the aforesaid guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, considering the age of the victim, the nature of her job; the nature and extent of injuries suffered by her, the medical documents filed; the period of her hospitalization and the pain and suffering undergone by her, she is held entitled for compensation as under: S.No. Head Compensation 01. Loss of total income due to 20% permanent disability (10,000 x 12 x 16 x 20%) Rs.3,84,000/- 02. Loss of earning for two months Rs.20,000/- 03. Medical expenses Rs.3,06,652/- 04. Future medical expenses Rs.50,000/- 05. Attendant charges Rs.10,000/- 06. Litigation expenses Rs.30,000/- 7 07. Towards conveyance Rs.25,000/- 08. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- 09. Towards diet expenses Rs.25,000/- 10. Marriage prospects Rs.1,00,000/- 11. Loss of amenities including reasonable enjoyment of life etc. Rs.1,00,000/- Total: Rs.11,00,652/- Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.3,81,152/-, after deducting the same from the above amount, the claimant is held entitled for additional compensation of Rs.7,19,500/- (Rupees seven lacs nineteen thousand and five hundred only) with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till realization. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the impugned award to the above extent. Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.04.07 16:47:36 +0530