1 2025:CGHC:27209 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2019 of 2019 1. Anuday Kumar Tandon S/o Shri Santkumar Tandon Aged About 20 Years R/o Madhuban Colony, Police Station Dr. Rajendra Nagar, Tahsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant-claimant versus 1. Bhuneshwar Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Chunnilal Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o K - 113, R. D. A. Colony, Boriya, Raipur, Police Station Tikrapara, Tahsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Driver Of The Offending Motorcycle C G - 04 - K U - 8118), 2. Abhishek Rai Choudhary S/o Shri Jyotirmay Rai Choudhary Aged About 20 Years R/o House No. 1, Bhawna Nagar, Kachna Road, Khamhardih, Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Owner Of The Offending Motorcycle C G - 04 - K U - 8118) 3. Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer Of The Offending Motorcycle C G - 04 - K U - 8118) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. P.K. Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. H.P. Agrawal, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 20/6/2025 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 Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 29.8.2019 in Claim Case No.56/2016. 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.45,00,000/-under various heads on account of permanent disability suffered by him in a road accident caused by offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle bearing registration number CG04-KU-8118, 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 19 years of old student, due to injuries sustained by him he has suffered permanent disability, he was in coma for about one year, unable to speak and walk properly. 3. Non-applicant No.1 and 2 filed joint reply to application and denied that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1. It was further pleaded that on the date of accident, offending vehicle 3 was insured with non-applicant No.3, therefore, non-applicant No.3 is liable to pay compensation. 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 effective driving license, 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.7,64,228/- as compensation to claimant/appellant herein. 6. Learned counsel for claimant/appellant submits that income of the deceased has not been properly assessed by the Claims Tribunal and even no amount towards future prospects has been awarded. He next contended that learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount as compensation under the heads ‘loss of future income’ pains and sufferings, loss of amenities, expenses towards future medical treatment. Therefore, he prays that the amount of compensation be enhanced suitably. 4 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 supporting the award passed by the Claims Tribunal has submitted that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused record of claim case including impugned award. 9. In the present case the claimant-appellant was 20 years of age and as a result of the accident, his both the limbs were paralyzed and on the basis of disability certificate (Ex.P-25), his permanent disability was assessed as 75%, which is not in dispute, and hence the same is maintained. 10. As regards income of appellant, the Claims Tribunal has taken income of appellant as Rs.4,000/- on notional basis, which in the opinion of this Court is not correct. At the time of accident, appellant was resident of city of Raipur, which comes within the category of Zone ‘A’, therefore, considering the minimum wage rate prescribed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for an unskilled labour of Zone ‘A’ category, for the relevant period, the income of the deceased is fixed as Rs.5,163/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 11. While computing loss of future income, the Claims Tribunal has not added anything towards loss of future prospects. In case of Sidram vs. The Divisional Manager, United 5 Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus:- "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." 12. In light of the above decision, this Court is of the view that the Claims Tribunal erred in not adding anything towards future prospects while assessing income of appellant. Accordingly, it is ordered that appellant being below the age of 40 years is entitled for addition of 40% of his income towards future prospects. 13. The Claims Tribunal has deducted one-half from the income 6 of injured claimant towards his personal and living expenses of applicant. Present is not the case filed by dependents of a victim of motor accident case. It is the case filed by an injured who suffered permanent disability on account of injuries sustained by him in a road accident. There could not be any justification for deduction of personal expenses. In the matter of Laln D. @ Lal vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2020) 9 SCC 805, the appellant has survived though in almost “coma stage” and in this circumstance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has turned down the plea of insurance company for making any deduction towards personal living expenses. Hence, the deduction of 50% towards personal and living expenses by the Claims Tribunal in an injury case is not tenable and therefore, it is hereby set aside. 14. In view of above, the compensation payable under the head ‘loss of future income’ is to be recomputed. Accordingly, income of appellant is taken as Rs.5,163/- and after adding 40% of the assessed income, total income comes to Rs.7,228/- and annual income comes to Rs.86,736/- (7228x12). By applying multiplier of 18, total amount of compensation would come to Rs.15,61,248/-. As the claimant has suffered 75% permanent disability, as held by the Claims Tribunal, the loss of future income suffered by applicant would 7 come to Rs.11,70,936/- (1561248x75%). It is ordered accordingly. 15. As regards the award of medical expenses, the Claims Tribunal considering the medical bills produced by claimant, which were on account of payment to the hospital towards treatment, medicines etc., awarded a total sum of Rs.3,78,828/-. The Claims Tribunal disbelieved the medical bills of Ex.P-73 to Ex.P-100 issued by Ramkrishna Care Hospital Raipur on the ground that these bills are though verfified by hospital but claimant has not produced the original bills nor offered explanation for not producing the original bills. Perusal of Ex.P-73, which is final bill summary of Ramkrishna Care Hospital Raipur, would show that appellant was admitted on 14.1.2014 in neurosurgery department and discharged on 31.1.2014 and the claimant has paid a sum of Rs.2,06,508/- towards his treatment during aforementioned period. Bills of Ex.P-73 to Ex.P-100 produced are from a reputed hospital of the State, these bills contained seal and signature of the said hospital and even it is not the case of any of the parties that claimant-appellant after suffering injuries was not admitted and treated in Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur. Under these circumstances, the Claims Tribunal ought not to have disregarded the medical bills of Ex.P-73 to P-100, which are photocopies. Hence, I am 8 inclined to allow the medical bills of Ex.P-73 to Ex.P-100, which are medical bills (photocopies) of Ram Krishna Care Hospital, Raipur with regard to medical treatment of claimant. Accordingly, it is ordered that claimant/appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,85,000/-, as is shown to be paid in Ex.P-74. 16. Looking to the nature of injuries and period of treatment coupled with the fact that appellant sustained 75% permanent disability as his both the limbs became paralyzed, the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal towards pains and sufferings is on lower and therefore, the same is hereby enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. 17. Present is the case where a young boy of 19 years has suffered 75% permanent disability in respect of both the limbs of body, as assessed in disability certificate (Ex.P-25), which will seriously affect enjoyment and amenities in life and deprive him from enjoying the life like a normal person. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the claimant-appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- for loss of amenities in future and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects. It is ordered accordingly. 18. Considering the nature of injuries and period of hospitalization of the claimant, as well as treatment taken by claimant, the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal under the head ‘attendant’ and ‘special diet’ is just and does not call for any 9 interference. 19. In view of above, claimant/appellant is now entitled for compensation as under;- HEADS : AMOUNT (In Rs.) Loss of future income (7228x12x18x75/100). : 11,70,936=00 Medical expenses : 4,28,848=00 For attendant : 29,000=00 For loss of amenities : 50,000=00 For pain and sufferings : 50,000=00 For special diet : 17,400=00 For loss of marriage aspect : 25,000=00 Total: 17,71,184=00 20. Now, claimant/appellant is held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.17,71,184/- in place of Rs.7,64,228/- 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. 21. In the result, the 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