1 / 7 2025:CGHC:34265 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2025 of 2019 1. Rojleen Bada W/o. Deepajan Bada Aged About 32 Years 2. Minor Deeprose Bada S/o. Deepajan Bada Aged About 4 Years Through Natural Guardian His Mother Rojleen Bada. Both Caste- Uranw R/o. -Gram- Lawakera, Tehsil- Farsabahar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants/ Applicants-Claimants versus 1. Tarun Singh S/o. Uday Singh Aged About 40 Years Caste-Rajput, R/o Gram- Lawakera, Tehsil- Farsabahar, District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh. (Driver) (Non Applicant No. 01) 2. Virendra Kumar Gupta S/o Ganesh Prasad Gupta, R/o Gram- Lawakera, Tehsil- Farsabahar, District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh. (Owner) (Non Applicant No. 02) 3. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd Micro Branch Office P.N.S. Complex, Raigarh Road, Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.(Non Applicant No. 03) ---Respondents/ Non-applicants ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Ms. Vidhi Natlani, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Prerna Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 18/07/2025 1. Appellants-claimants have 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 13.08.2019 passed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 7 Learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kunkuri, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 7/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 5,31,746/- as compensation. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 09.01.2017 applicants were travelling on a bus bearing number CG14-0118 (hereinafter referred to as “offending bus”) and returning to village Lavakera from village Khajurbahar after attending marriage function of his relative. When the bus reached near Farsabahar chowk, its driver, non-applicant No. 1 while driving the bus rashly and negligently dashed with the paver machine standing on the side of the road and caused accident. In the accident, applicants suffered grievous injuries. They took treatment at Holy Cross Hospital, Kunkuri. During course of treatment, right leg below knee of applicant-Rojleen Bada was amputated. 3. Applicants-claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 46,56,598/- pleading therein that applicant- Rojleen Bada on the date of accident was a healthy woman aged about 32 years. She was working in Anganbadi and earning ₹ 4,000 per month. 4. Respondents No. 1 & 2/ Non-applicants No. 1 & 2 -driver and owner of the offending bus filed their reply to the application, denying the facts pleaded therein. It was further pleaded that on the date of accident non-applicant No. 1 was driving the bus carefully and no accident was caused from the offending bus. It was further pleaded that on the date of accident, offending bus collided with paver machine parked on the road, thus, there was contributory negligence of both the vehicles. Driver, owner and insurer of the other vehicle paver machine were not made parties, in such situation, the application is not maintainable. Non-applicant No. 1 was possessed with valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident and the offending 3 / 7 bus was insured by non-applicant No. 3, thus, liability, to pay compensation, if any, would be of non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company. 5. Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company filed 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 bus was being plied in breach of policy conditions, there was no valid permit of the bus and more passengers were travelling than the permitted capacity. Thus, 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 both the applicants suffered grievous injuries resulting in permanent disability to applicant Rojleen Bada in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending bus owned by non-applicant No. 2 and driven by non-applicant No. 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy, contributory negligence and non-joinder of parties were not found to be proved. Tribunal calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 4,86,284 to Rojleen Bada and ₹ 45,462 to minor Deepros Bada as total compensation with interest @ 6% 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. 7. Learned counsel for appellants-claimants would submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is much less. Claims Tribunal while assessing additional income of Ms. Rojleen Bada of ₹ 2,000 as income other than the income from Anganwadi wages has assessed loss of earning to the extent of 50% only ie., of ₹ 1,000/- per month and computed the loss of future earning as ₹ 1,92,000/-, applying the multiplier of 16. She also contended that claimant in her evidence has specifically stated that the prosthetic leg is required to be replaced after every four years and socket is also to be changed after every 1-2 years, however, no amount has been 4 / 7 awarded for said regular expenses which she has to incurred in future. Claims Tribunal has awarded only ₹ 99,961 towards prosthetic leg. Tribunal has further awarded only ₹ 50,000/- for change of socket of prosthetic leg and has not awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities in life. Meager sum of compensation is awarded towards pain and suffering, special diet during period of treatment and attendant. A consolidated amount of compensation awarded under the aforementioned heads is also not appropriate. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants-claimants and would submit that the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation in almost all the heads. The compensation awarded is just and proper. She however contended that compensation for the prosthetic leg and socket is also awarded including the expenses of socket change in future. She also contended that the loss of functional disability has been assessed by the Claims Tribunal as 50% which is also correctly assessed in view of the Schedule-I of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 10. Amputation of right leg below knee is not in dispute. Claims Tribunal has considered that even after suffering of permanent disability due to amputation of right leg claimant-Rojleen Bada is still continuing in service in Anganwadi. Tribunal has further assessed income which she could have earned in a normal physical condition as ₹ 2,000, accordingly assessed loss of future income as ₹ 1,000/- per month ie., considering 50% functional disability which cannot be said to be erroneous in the facts of the case. Tribunal has awarded compensation of ₹ 39,923 towards medical expenses, and cost of replacement of prosthetic leg and the socket is mentioned as ₹ 99,961. As per the evidence of claimant No. 1, change is required after every four years 5 / 7 which cannot be said to be false statement when the amputation of leg below knee is proved and further the tax invoice is also issued as Ext. A-16 of change of prosthetic leg of ₹ 99,961, as also during her lifetime considering her average age to be 70 years she might be required to change the prosthetic leg for about 6 times and therefore, I find it appropriate to award compensation of ₹ 6 Lakh for change of prosthetic leg and the socket in future. 11. Claims Tribunal has further awarded consolidated amount of ₹ 1 Lakh towards special diet and pain and suffering and attendant which in the opinion of this Court is much less overlooking the nature of injuries suffered by claimant. Considering the amputation of right leg below knee of a lady aged about 32 years, I find it appropriate to award ₹ 75,000/- towards pain and suffering, ₹ 20,000/- towards special diet and further considering the period of treatment as in-patient from 09.01.2017 to 31.01.2017 as also the fact that even after discharge from hospital claimant might have taken help of attendant and other person for her day to day activities, ₹ 25,000/- is awarded towards attendant. Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation towards loss of amenities in life for which this Court find it appropriate to award ₹ 1,00,000 under the head of loss of amenities in life. Claimant shall further be entitled for loss of income for a period of three months. As the Claims Tribunal has computed income as ₹ 6,000 per month, therefore, she will be entitled for ₹ 18,000/- towards loss of income during period of treatment. Particulars Compensation Medical Expenses (maintained) ₹ 39,923/- Change of prosthetic leg and the socket in future ₹ 6,00,000/- Pain and suffering ₹ 75,000/- Special Diet ₹ 20,000/- Attendant ₹ 25,000/- Loss of amenities in life ₹ 1,00,000/- 6 / 7 Loss of income during period of treatment ₹ 18,000/- Total ₹ 8,77,923/- 12. So far as the award of compensation in the case of claimant- Deeprose Bada is concerned, perusal of record would show that the Claims Tribunal has awarded the amount of ₹ 15,462 towards medical expenses, ₹ 30,000 consolidated amount towards pain and suffering, special diet and attendant. Undisputedly on the date of accident, age of claimant No. 2 was four years. Looking to the nature of injury suffered by her ie., fracture of left leg, she took treatment from 09.01.2017 till 24.02.2017. She also suffered fracture of tibia fibula left; I,II,III metatarsal left foot; IInd toe amputated, as per discharge summary. Claims Tribunal has not considered nature of injury suffered by her, while awarding the compensation. 13. In the facts of the case, the compensation awarded to the claimants requires enhancement while affirming the award of compensation of ₹ 15,462 towards medical expenses, I find it appropriate to award ₹ 25,000 towards pain and suffering, ₹ 15,000 towards special diet, ₹ 27,000 towards attendant, ₹ 20,000 towards loss of amenities in life and ₹ 25,000 towards grievous injuries. Particulars Compensation Medical Expenses (maintained) ₹ 15,462/- Pain and suffering ₹ 25,000/- Special Diet ₹ 15,000/- Attendant ₹ 27,000/- Loss of amenities in life ₹ 20,000/- Grievous Injury ₹ 25,000/- Total ₹ 1,27,462/- 14. Now, appellant-claimant- Roselin Bada, shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 8,77,923/- instead of ₹ 4,86,284/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal and appellant- Deeprose Bada shall be entitled for total sum 7 / 7 of compensation of ₹ 1,27,462/- instead of ₹ 45,462/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The 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 appellants-claimants pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. Rest of the conditions as imposed by the Claims Tribunal in the impugned award shall remain intact. 15. 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