1 2025:CGHC:31008 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1785 of 2019 1. Deepak Mangode S/o Hanslal Mangode Aged About 18 Years R/o Jawahar Nagar, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg (CG) ... Appellant-claimant Versus 1. Jagjeet Singh S/o Harbansh Aged About 54 Years R/o Cloth Market, Near Wage Kirana Stores, New Khursipar, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Driver of the offending Mahindra Maximo Plus No. HRD-6C-18909) 2. Gulser Ali Khan S/o Akbar Khan Aged About 48 Years R/o Lig - 3214 Jawahar Nagar, Jamul, Bhiali, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh, (Owner of the offending Mahindra Maximo Plus No. HRD-6C-18909). 3. Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Office At District Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of The Offending Mahindra Maximo Plus No. HRD-6C-18909). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Majid Ali, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 7/7/2025 1. Appellant-claimant, who suffered permanent disability in a road accident, has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Court of learned 7th Additional 2 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 8.2.2019 in Claim Case No.86/2014. 2. Claimant-appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/-under various heads on account of permanent disability suffered by him in a road accident caused by offending vehicle i.e. Mahindra Maximo Plus bearing registration number HRD-6C- 18909, driven in a rash and negligent manner by non- applicant No.1/ respondent No.1 herein. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, claimant was 18 years old boy, due to injuries sustained by him he has suffered permanent disability, which would affect his earning capacity in future. 3. Non-applicant No.1 and 2 filed joint reply to application, denied the occurring of accident due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1. It was further pleaded that on the date of accident, non-applicant No.1 was possessing valid driving license, offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3 and therefore, non- applicant No.3 is liable to pay compensation if any awarded. 4. Non-applicant No.3 also filed its reply denying the averments made therein. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, driver of offending vehicle was not possessing valid and 3 effective driving license and even there was no permit and fitness certificate in favour of offending vehicle, therefore, insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. 5. The Claims Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence adduced by respective parties, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of offending vehicle; there was no element of contributory negligence or violation of conditions of insurance policy and accordingly, allowed the application in part and awarded total sum of Rs.1,75,200/- as compensation to claimant /appellant herein. 6. Learned counsel for claimant/appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal has not taken into consideration the loss towards future prospects while computing compensation under the head of loss of earning capacity. He further submits that appellant has suffered compound fracture of right shaft femur bone, he remained admitted in hospital from 26.2.2014 to 6.3.2014, he took treatment as outpatient upto April, 2014 and thus he was away from the work for sufficient long time, however, the Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards loss of income during period of treatment. He next contended that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal under other heads is also on lower side and deserves to be enhanced suitably. 4 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents supporting the award passed by the Claims Tribunal submitted that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper, it does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused record of claim case including impugned award. 9. Assessment of income of appellant-injured and determination of extent of disability suffered by him is not in dispute. Appellant is only aggrieved by the fact that the Claims Tribunal has not added future prospects while computing loss of future earning capacity of appellant; non-grant of compensation under the head of ‘loss of income’ during period of treatment and grant of meager compensation under other heads. 10. Perusal of the award would show that the Claims Tribunal has not added anything to the assessed monthly income of appellant towards future prospects though it is established from the disability certificate (Ex.P-29) that the appellant has suffered permanent disability in his right lower limb to the extent of 14%. In case of Sidram vs. The Divisional Manager, United Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus:- 5 "31. It is now a well settled position of law that even in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor-accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future prospects as well. We have come across many orders of different tribunals and unfortunately affirmed by different High Courts, taking the view that the claimant is not entitled to compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. That is not a correct position of law. There is no justification to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading is illogical because it denies altogether the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in accident cases - and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim's death." 11. In light of the above decision, it is clear that calculation of compensation towards loss of future earning capacity on account of disability is required to be made by adding future prospects in the income of injured claimant. Hence, this Court is of the view that the Claims Tribunal erred in not adding anything towards future prospects while assessing income of appellant for the purpose of computing compensation under the head of loss of future earning capacity. Since appellant was below the age of 40 years i.e. of 18 years, at the time of accident, he is entitled for addition 6 of 40% of his income towards future prospects. It is ordered accordingly. 12. In view of above, the compensation payable to the appellant under the head ‘loss of future earning capacity’ is to be recomputed. Accordingly, income of appellant is taken as Rs.5,000/-, as assessed by the Claims Tribunal, and after adding 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects, total income of appellant comes to Rs.7,000/- and annual income comes to Rs.84,000/- (7000x12). By applying multiplier of 18, total amount of compensation would come to Rs.15,12,000/-. As the claimant has suffered 14% permanent disability, as determined by the Claims Tribunal, the loss of future earning suffered by applicant would come to Rs.2,11,680/- (1512000x14%). It is ordered accordingly. 13. Regarding the loss of income during period of treatment is concerned, appellant suffered fracture of right femur bone in the accident, he took treatment as inpatient for a period of about 10 days, as could be seen from Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 i.e. discharge summary of CM Medical College Hospital, Bhilai. and thereafter he took treatment as out-patient upto to 16.4.2014, as is evident from Ex.P-5 to Ex.P-7, which are Cash Receipts of Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital, Bhilai. Thus, it can be safely presumed that on account of injuries sustained by appellant, he may not have been able to 7 attend his avocation for a period of three months and might have suffered loss of income on that account. Consequently, the appellant is entitled for compensation under the head of loss of income for a period of three months. As the income of appellant is assessed as Rs.7,000/- per month, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.21,000/- (7000x3) under the head of loss of income and it is ordered accordingly. 14. Looking to the age of appellant and the fact that he suffered 14% permanent disability in his right leg due to which he has to suffer agony for his whole life, I am of the view that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal towards pains and sufferings and special diet is on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Accordingly, it is ordered that appellant is now entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards pain and sufferings and Rs.8,000/- for special diet. 15. The compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal towards medical expenses, conveyance and attendant is just and proper and the same is maintained. 16. In view of above, claimant/appellant is now entitled for compensation as under;- HEADS : AMOUNT (In Rs.) Loss of future earning capacity (7000x12x18x14/100). : 2,11,680=00 Loss of income (7000x3) : 21,000=00 Medical expenses : 52,150=00 8 For pain and sufferings : 15,000=00 For Special Diet : 8,000=00 For conveyance : 3,000=00 For Attendant : 2,000=00 Total: 3,12,830=00 17. Now, claimant/appellant is held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,12,830/- in place of Rs.2,34,150/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. This amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of application. Any amount disbursed to appellant pursuant to impugned award will be adjusted from the amount of compensation as awarded above. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 18. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/- SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI