1 2025:CGHC:39951 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1853 of 2019 1 - Mohd. Aslam S/o Mohd. Alam Aged About 24 Years R/o 15 Block Jhopadi Para, Korba Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Sourabh Agrawal S/o Shri Jugal Kishore Agrawal Aged About 37 Years R/o Tirupati Enterprises Plot No. 167, T.P. Nagar, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Neetu Agrawal W/o Sourabh Agrawal Aged About 38 Years R/o Tirupati Enterprises Plot No. 167, T.P. Nagar, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, First Floor, Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Pandri Road, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. P. Acharya, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Nikhil Singh, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 08/08/2025 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 10.08.2018 passed by the Second Additional Motor SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba, District – Korba (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 107/2015. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 19.01.2015, when the applicant was traveling towards Risdi from Korba on his motorcycle, on his way, one car bearing registration no. CG 12 R 3227 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle) which was being driven by Non- Applicant rashly and negligently, dashed motorcycle of the applicant and the applicant sustained severe injuries. He was taken to hospital for treatment. Subsequent to the said accident, F.I.R. was registered against the Non-Applicant No. 1 bearing Crime No. 19/2015 P.S. Balco, District – Korba. The claimant has filed application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehciles Act, 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 23,00,000/- with interest. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre amount of compensation in the facts of the case. Appellant suffered permanent disability over his leg and as per the Disability Certificate (Ex. P/9), he suffered 33.03% permanent disability. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards permanent disability, future prospects and the compensation awarded towards loss of income is also less as the income assessed is on lower side. In claim application, appellant pleaded his income as Rs. 13,000/- per month by doing the work of Accountant, however, his income has been assessed as Rs. 8,000/- per month only. Not considered evidence of PW-4 (Ghanshyam Gupta) who is an employee, looking after the work of employees of the company. In his evidence, this witness has categorically stated that the appellant was working as Accountant and he was being paid Rs. 13,000/- vide Ex. 3 P/61. He submitted that, he was removed from his work by his employer which is also admitted and stated by the witnesses Ghanshyam Gupta (PW-4) in his evidence. The compensation awarded under the other heads is also much on lower side and therefore, it may be enhanced suitably. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company opposes submission and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal justified in not awarding compensation under the head of permanent disability. According to pleadings and case of the appellant, he was working as Accountant, suffered permanent disability on the left leg and therefore, it will not affect the work of Accountant. As the appellant has not suffered loss of income due to permanent disability, there is no question of awarding future prospect. Income as assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal also appears to be just and proper in the facts of the case. Compensation awarded is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of claim case. 6. So far as first submission of counsel for the appellant that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards permanent disability is concerned, perusal of the record would show that the claimant along with other documents has not exhibited the discharge summary or the X-ray report, however, from the Disability Certificate which is produced as Ex. P/9 would only show that at the time of examination of the appellant by the Doctor of District Hospital, Korba for the purpose of issuing disability certificate, it only mentions that old fracture of Tibia/Fibula Left L 1/3 lower limb. Permanent disability is 4 mentioned as 33.03%. The doctor has further stated that the permanent disability for the whole body would be 13.03% and it is mentioned that the knee to be normal, ankle and foot to be normal. Doctor has also been examined to prove the disability certificate issued by him i.e. Dr. B.P. Singh (AW-3). He in his evidence before the learned Claims Tribunal has stated that the disability for the whole body is 13.212%. Admittedly, occupation of the appellant was Accountant which is a table work. Nature of injury suffered by him i.e. on the leg and the normal percentage of disability, it is not the case of the appellant that he will not be able to move, walk or travel to his office or place of work. In the aforementioned facts of the case and looking to the nature of work of Accountancy which the appellant was doing prior to the date of accident, it will not affect the earning of the appellant and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in not awarding any compensation towards loss of income towards permanent disability. In view of above, submission of counsel for the appellant is repelled. 7. So far as next submission of counsel for appellant that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 24,000/- towards loss of income during period of treatment is concerned, learned Claims Tribunal has assessed income of the appellant as Rs. 8,000/- per month. The claimant in his pleading has clearly stated that he was being paid Rs. 13,000/- by his employer for the work of Accountant. He examined witness Ghanshyam (AW-4) from the office of Sudama Singh Associates Variety India Joint Venture, Korba who in his evidence have stated that the appellant was earlier working with the firm as Accountant and he was paid Rs. 13,000/- per month as salary. Income 5 as pleaded in the claim application is proved by the appellant by examining one of the employee of his employer and therefore, in the facts of the case, income as pleaded in the claim application, in the opinion of this Court has been proved. 8. Claims Tribunal disbelieved Income Certificate (Ex. P/61) proved by witness Ghanshyam (AW-4) only on the ground that the attendance register has not been produced and has assessed income of appellant as Rs. 8,000/- per month which in the facts of the case is erroneous and not sustainable. In view of aforementioned facts of the case, I find it appropriate to assess income of the appellant as Rs. 13,000/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 9. Appellant suffered loss of income for 03 months which in the facts of the case does not call for any interference. Accordingly, loss of income for a period of 03 months would be Rs. 39,000/- (13,000 X 13). Learned Claims Tribunal also awarded compensation of Rs. 16,000 for the period of 02 months to search the new job. As this Court has assessed the income of the appellant to be Rs. 13,000/- p.m., therefore, the compensation for search of job would be Rs. 26,000 (13,000 X 2) instead of Rs. 16,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. 10. Learned Claims Tribunal further awarded compensation towards the medical bills produced by the appellant as also, compensation for damage caused to the motorcycle of appellant which is just and proper and does not call for any interference. The compensation awarded under the head of conveyance in the opinion of this Court is less and therefore, it is enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- from Rs. 3,000/-. The amount of compensation awarded under the heads of pains and sufferings, special diet, disfigurement of the body and attendant is just and proper 6 and does not call for any interference. However, learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head of grievous injury as suffered by the appellant. In the facts of the case, I find it appropriate to award Rs. 15,000 towards the grievous injury. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 20,000/- towards future medical treatment for removing the rod Implanted in the leg of the appellant. Appellant submitted estimate of the expenditure for removing the rod from the New Korba, Hospital dated 13.03.2016 in which, estimated cost for complete treatment has been mentioned as Rs. 40,000 in Ex. P/70. The Claims Tribunal without assigning any reason as reduced the said amount and has awarded only Rs. 20,000/-. Considering the nature of injury and the fact that rod was inplanted in the leg of the appellant which has to be removed in future, I find it appropriate to award the amount as mentioned in the estimate as Ex. P/70 of Rs. 40,000/- It is ordered accordingly. . 11.For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellants. S. No. Heads Compensation 1. Loss of income during laid down period : Rs. 39,000/- 2. For search of job : (+) Rs. 26,000/- 3. Medical Expenses : (+) Rs.70,025/- 4. Damages to motorcycle : (+) Rs. 7,000/- 5. Conveyance : (+) Rs. 5,000/- 6. Future medical treatment : (+) Rs. 40,000/- 7. Special diet : (+) Rs. 5,000/- 8. Pains and sufferings : (+) Rs. 25,000/- 9. Disfigurement of body : (+) Rs. 20,000/- 10. Attendant : (+) Rs. 5,000/- 11. Grievous Injury : (+) Rs. 15,000/- Total Compensation : Rs. 2,57,025/- 7 12. Now, the Appellant/Claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs. 2,57,025/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 13. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/-d/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey