1 / 8 2025:CGHC:32497 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1975 of 2019 • Shyam Bhushan Lal S/o Tikaram Patle Aged About 39 Years Through Amicus Curie Smt. Savitri Bhushan, W/o Shyam Bhushan Lal Aged About 36 Years, R/o House No. 575 Ganga Nagar, Sector-2, Mangla Thana P.S.- Civil Line Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant/ Applicant/ Claimant versus 1. Umesh Kumar Pradhan S/o Gendram Pradhan Aged About 29 Years R/o Behind Bus Stand Beltara, P.S. Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Pick Up CG-10C-6788) 2. Krishna Kumar Dhiwar S/o Nandu Dhiwar, R/o Beltara, Qtr. No. 461/2, Dhiwarpara, P.S.- Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Pick Up CG-10C-6788) 3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Manager, 1st Floor, Infront Of Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of Pick Up CG-10C-6788) ---Respondents/ Non-applicants ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Ms. Shalini Jangde, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. N.K. Malviya, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 14/07/2025 1. Appellant-claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the award dated 27.09.2017 passed by Learned Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 8 Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 474/2016, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 11,03,901/- as compensation in motor accidental injury case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 08.02.2016 applicant Shyambhushan Lal while riding on his motorcycle No. CG12JM3999 carefully going to Seepat Chowk from Mangla Chowk, at about 07:30 pm in evening. When he reached at Indira Setu bridge near Mahamaya Chowk, a pick-up no. CG10C6788 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”) driven by non-applicant No. 1 rashly and negligently hit the motorcycle of applicant from behind and caused accident. In the accident, applicant suffered several grievous injuries and motorcycle also got damage. Accident was reported to police station Sarkanda based on which Crime No. 113/16 was registered against non-applicant No. 1 for alleged offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC. 3. Appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of ₹ 54,20,500/- based on the pleadings made therein. 4. Respondents No. 1 & 2 / Non-applicants No. 1 & 2 -driver and owner of the offending vehicle filed reply to the application, denied the pleadings made therein. It was further stated that the applicant himself was negligent in the accident, he dashed his motorcycle with another vehicle on the Indira Setu bridge. Non-applicant no. 1 on the date of accident was possessing valid and effective driving licence and the offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No. 3. 5. Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company filed its reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that on the date of accident, offending 3 / 8 motorcycle was being driven in breach of conditions of insurance policy as the driver of the offending motorcycle did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and there was no valid permit, fitness certificate. The information of the alleged accident was not given by the non- applicants No. 1 and 2. It is also stated that the owner and insurer of the motorcycle driven by applicant was not made parties to the proceedings, thus the application is not maintainable. In such a situation, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation, if awarded. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that appellant-Shyambhushan Lal suffered grievous injuries in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle driven by non-applicant No. 1. Permanent disability due to accident is not found to be proved. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was also not found to be proved. Tribunal calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 11,03,901/- as total compensation with interest @ 8.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization and fastened liability to satisfy the award upon non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company. 7. Learned counsel for appellant-claimant would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation towards the permanent disability suffered by the claimant/ appellant. He also contended that the Claims Tribunal fell into error in not awarding compensation even under the head of grievous injury overlooking the injuries suffered by appellant of multiple fracture on his person. She lastly contended that the amount of compensation under the heads of pain and suffering, conveyance expenses and special diet is also much less and prays for suitable enhancement of the compensation. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellant-claimant and would submit 4 / 8 that the appellant-claimant has not proved permanent disability suffered by him due to motor accidental injury in accordance with law. He further submits that the Claims Tribunal considering entirety of the facts of the case has awarded just amount of compensation which does not call for any interference. It is contention of learned counsel that it is not a case of appellant-claimant that due to permanent disability arising out of motor accidental injury, appellant is not able to discharge his duty, affecting his income, who is a Government servant. 9. Learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 and 2 would adopt the submission of counsel for Respondent No. 3. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. 11. Perusal of record would show that the appellant-claimant has not produced disability certificate before the Claims Tribunal. Appellant-claimant along with memo of appeal has submitted Disability Certificate as Annexure A-2 mentioning 40% permanent disability. He has not filed any application under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC to take additional evidence on record. I have perused the disability certificate filed as Annexure A-2. 12. Perusal of discharge ticket showing discharge on request, placed on record as Ext. A-153 would further show that the claimant/ appellant was admitted in the Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur on 09.02.2016 and discharged on 15.03.2016. Another discharge summary of Apollo Hospital is Ext. P-154 mentioning date of admission and discharge as 20.03.2016 to 26.03.2016. In the discharge summary, it is mentioned that he was admitted on account of Urinary Tract Infection. As per Ext. P-156 ie., Out Patient Card of Physiotherapy Department, Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur would show that there was fracture of Proximal Humerus, left commuted, Distal Humerus (left), left Olecranon, Multiple Rib Fracture. 5 / 8 13. To prove nature of injury and the period of admission, claimant has examined Dr. Ashish Jaiswal of Apollo Hospital as AW-2. He is Orthopedic Surgeon. In his evidence in-chief, he stated that claimant suffered injury over his head left shoulder left hand, elbow and fracture of left tibia bone and multiple fracture of ribs. Claims Tribunal overlooking the nature of injury suffered by claimant and motor accidental injuries has failed to award compensation under the head of grievous injury, and has not awarded any amount of compensation under the head of attendant and meager sum is awarded of ₹ 10,000/- towards pain and suffering. 14. The issue with regard to amount of compensation to be awarded on other heads in personal injury case has been considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control India Ltd. reported in 1995 (1) SCC 551 and thereafter in Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar and another reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343. • In R.D. Hattangadi (supra) it is held as under: “9. Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non- pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, 6 / 8 discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.” 10. It cannot be disputed that because of the accident the appellant who was an active practising lawyer has become paraplegic on account of the injuries sustained by him. It is really difficult in this background to assess the exact amount of compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the appellant and for having become a lifelong handicapped. No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the appellant. That is why it has been said by courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate such injury "so far as money can compensate" because it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame. 11. x x x x 12. In its very nature whenever a tribunal or a court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guesswork, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards.” • In case of Rajkumar (supra) case, it is held thus: “13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. 7 / 8 14. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred per cent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of “loss of future earnings”, if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not be found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity. 15. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may.” 15. Considering the facts of the case, nature of injury and period of treatment, I am of the view that the Claims Tribunal fell into error in not awarding compensation under the aforementioned heads, and therefore, appellant- claimant is awarded ₹ 50,000/- towards grievous injuries. The amount of compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering is also enhanced from ₹ 10,000/- to ₹ 15,000/-. Tribunal has also not awarded amount of compensation under the head of attendant looking to the nature of injury, period of treatment of about more than 40 days in the hospital and in 8 / 8 particular considering that the appellant-claimant suffered fracture over his hip bone also, therefore, I find it appropriate to award compensation towards attendant for a period of 04 months. It is ordered accordingly. The date of accident is of the year 2016 and therefore taking monthly expenses towards attendant as ₹ 5,000/-, the compensation towards attendant will be ₹ 20,000. The amount of compensation awarded under the head of special diet is also enhanced to ₹ 20,000/- from ₹ 10,000. It is ordered accordingly. 16. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellant-claimant requires recomputation, which is as under. Particulars Compensation Medical expenses (affirmed) ₹ 10,73,901/- Grievous injuries ₹ 50,000/- Attendant Cost ₹ 20,000/- Mental Pain and sufferings ₹ 15,000/- Special Diet and conveyance ₹ 20,000/- Total ₹ 11,78,901/- 17. Now the appellant/claimant shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 11,78,901/- instead of ₹ 11,03,901/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount paid to the appellant-claimant pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 18. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn