1 2025:CGHC:32100 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1943 of 2018 Anand Singh S/o Prakash Singh Aged About 25 Years R/o Uslapur, Tahsil Mungeli District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Rajesh Sahu S/o Jageswar Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Tedadhoura, Tahsil Mungeli District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 2 - Murarilal S/o Pyarelal R/o Qr. No. 597 Grasim Cement Bihar Rawan Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner) 3 - Oriental Insurance Company Shriram Traders 2nd Floor, in front of Rajiv Plaza Old Bus Stand Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate For Respondents No.1 and 2 : None For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 10.07.2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 26.09.2018 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.07.14 11:34:08 +0530 2 Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Case No.32/2015 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimant and awarded Rs.2,53,410/- as compensation. 2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that, on 16.02.2014, at about 8.30-9.00 PM, appellant was returning from Mungeli to his village Tedadhaura on his motorcycle, when he reached electricity office at Pandariay, at that relevant time, one Wagon-R bearing registration No.CG-04/HB/3089 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”) driven by respondent No.1/non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of the appellant, due to which, he fell down and suffered injuries over his waist, head, both the knee and legs. The appellant was taken to Government Hospital for primary treatment and thereafter, he was referred to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur. 3. The claimant has filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.15,70,000/- on various head on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident. 4. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle have not appeared before the Claims Tribunal and they were proceeded ex-parte. 5. The Insurance Company of the offending vehicle has filed its written statement denying the factum of accident and pleaded that there was contributory negligence on the part of driver of both the vehicles. It has been further pleaded that on the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessed with valid 3 and effective driving licence, as such there was breach of policy conditions and the claimant shall only be entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation. 6. The learned Claims Tribunal after appreciating the claim applications as well as evidence on record in the claim case, has awarded a sum of Rs.2,53,410/- as compensation to the claimant along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal has committed error of law in awarding meagre amount of compensation. He further submits that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of claimant on lower side as he was Contractor as also filed income tax return, according to which, the claimant was earning Rs.1,00,000/- month. It has been contended that even if the income of the injured is not established, it should have been calculated according to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 at the relevant point of time. It has been further contended that learned Claims Tribunal has awarded meagre amount towards pain and suffering, which needs to be enhanced suitably. As such, the appeal be allowed and compensation be enhanced suitably. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that at the most, income of the claimant is to be assessed according to Minimum Wages Act and treated him to be skilled 4 labour, which at the time of accident, is Rs.5,605/- per month. He further submits that insofar as other heads are concerned, the Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation, which warrants no interference. 9. I have heard and considered the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of claim cases. 10. Insofar as the income of appellant/claimant on the date of accident is concerned, before the learned Claims Tribunal, claimant has pleaded that he was doing the work of Supervisor, but has not produced any evidence with respect to place of work or any documentary evidence with respect to salary or income of the claimant. In the instant case, since the accident occurred was in the year 2014, and the Tribunal has reckoned the income of the claimant as Rs.4,500/- per month, i.e. Rs.54,000/- per annum, which is on the lower side. Even if it is to be treated that the claimant was working as a skilled labour, then also looking to the price index and the wages prevailing at that relevant time, the monthly income of the claimant would be reckon to Rs.5,605/- per month. 11. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence adduced by the claimant, which was not rebutted by the non-applicants therein and further considering the medical bills, though it appropriate to award Rs.56,410/- towards treatment and medicines, Rs.1,25,000/- towards future treatment, Rs.45,000/- towards loss 5 of income for 10 months, Rs.5,000/- towards special diet, Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance expenses, Rs.7,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- towards non-economic loss. Thus, the Claims Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,53,410/- to the claimant. 12. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 13. Admittedly, in an vehicular accident that had taken place on 16.02.2014, the claimant sustained grievous injures on his person. Looking to the grievous injuries, he was taken to CIMS Hospital, Apollo Hospital and Sanjivani Hospital where he was treated. The Claims Tribunal, considering the evidence, oral and documentary as also material available on record and also looking to the nature and number of injuries, awarded Rs.7,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards special diet, which in the considered opinion of this Court, is on lower side. During the course of treatment, it cannot also be discarded that the claimant must have suffered pain and agony arising out of grievous injuries sustained by him. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and number of injuries sustained by the claimant, the period of his 6 hospitalization, during which period, he had to undergo continuous treatment, further considering the fact that during treatment of claimant, he suffered severe mental agony and pain arising out of grievous injuries, the expenses incurred by him during the course of treatment and the unrebutted evidence adduced in support thereof, this Court is of the opinion that the claimant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.15,000/- towards special diet. 15. 15. As this Court has assessed the income of claimant to be Rs.5,605/- on notional basis, his loss of income for 10 months would come to Rs.56,050/-. 16. On the basis of above recalculation, the claimant shall be entitled to Rs.56,410/- towards medical expenses, Rs.1,25,000/- towards future treatment, Rs.56,050/- towards loss of income for 10 months, Rs.15,000/- towards special diet, Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance expenses, Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards non-economic loss. 17. In the said circumstance, the total compensation comes to Rs.2,92,460/-. After deducting Rs.2,53,410/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.39,050/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization, as held by the Claims Tribunal. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain unchanged. 7 18. Since it is an admitted that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, as such the Insurance Company is directed to pay the entire amount of compensation to the claimant as modified by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. 19. Record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh