1 2025:CGHC:34543 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2057 of 2019 1. Anish Kumar Banjare S/o Late Ramdev Banjare Aged About 18 Years R/o Village And Post Selud, P.S. Utai Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant-claimant versus 1. Sukhram Bisnoi S/o Mohne Ram Bisnoi Aged About 31 Years R/o Village And Post Palli, P.S. Mthoda, Tahsil Odisha, District Jodhpur Rajasthan, At Present C/o Chhanga Lal Sahu, R/o Village Dumardih, P.S. Utai, District Durg Chhattisgarh 2. Birbal Ram S/o Malaram Minor , R/o Karnipura, Post Padimal , P.S. Falaudi, District Jodhpur Rajasthan. 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Manager Shivnath Complex , G.E. Road , Supela , Bhilai, District Durg Chhattigarh(Insurer), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Praveen K Dhurundhar, Advocate For Respondent No.1 & 2 : Mr. V.K. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 21/7/2025 1. Appellant-claimant, who suffered injuries in a road accident, has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 awarded by the Court of learned 1st Additional Tribunal to the Court of 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 17.5.2019 in Claim Case No.180/2018. 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.19,40,000/-under various heads on account of injuries suffered by him in a road accident caused by tractor bearing registration number RA- 1720, 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 on 17.12.2016, claimant was 18 years old boy, due to injuries sustained by him he suffered permanent disability and is unable to do the work which he was doing prior to accident. 3. Non-applicant No.1 and 2 filed joint reply to application, denied the occurring of accident from their vehicle. It was pleaded that false report against them has been lodged. It was further pleaded that on the date of accident, non- applicant No.1 was possessing valid driving license, offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3 and therefore, non-applicant No.3 is liable to pay compensation if any awarded. 4. Non-applicant No.3 also filed its reply denying the averments 3 made therein. It was pleaded that claimant did not suffer permanent disability in the accident by the offending vehicle due to negligence of non-applicant No.1, rather it was outcome of negligent act on the part of claimant himself. At the time of accident, claimant was driving the motorcycle under the influence of liquor. 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 of the offending vehicle by nopn-applicant No.1; claimant suffered grievous injuries but not permanent disability; claimant was also responsible for the accident to the extent of 30%, there was no breach of any conditions of insurance policy and accordingly, allowed the application in part; assessed total compensation of Rs.38,000/-, out of which deducting 30% towards contributory negligence of claimant- appellant herein and awarded a sum of Rs.27,000/- as compensation. 6. Learned counsel for claimant/appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal erred in disbelieving permanent disability certificate (Ex.P-A-15) filed by appellant wherein the doctor issuing disability certificate has assessed permanent disability to the extent of 15%. He next contended that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded sufficient amount of compensation 4 under the head of pains and sufferings overlooking the nature of injuries suffered by appellant i.e. fracture of left femur and right humerus bone. He also contended that deduction of 30% amount of compensation, as assessed and awarded by the Claims Tribunal, towards contributory negligence on the part of appellant is erroneous. He next contended that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal under other heads is also on lower side and deserves to be enhanced suitably. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents supporting the award passed by the Claims Tribunal submitted that the Claims Tribunal recorded a finding that appellant claimant was also contributory negligent to the extent of 30% as on the date of accident the claimant was not having valid and effective driving license and he was under the influence of liquor. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for appellant submits that there is no evidence that the claimant was under the influence of liquor except one line noting in bed head ticket that there was smell of alcohol. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused record of claim case. 10. So far as submission of learned counsel for appellant- claimant that the Claims Tribunal erred in holding that 5 claimant was also contributory negligent to the extent of 30% is concerned, perusal of Ex.P-15, which is indoor patient admission ticket of Government Hospital Durg, would show that the doctor, who medically examined appellant-claimant, has noticed smell of alcohol in breathe of appellant. Admittedly, appellant-claimant was not having valid and effective driving license on the date of accident. Driving of motor vehicle by a person after consuming alcohol is restricted under the Act of 1988. In view of aforementioned facts of the case where the doctor who treated claimant after the accident had noticed smell of alcohol in his breathe and the claimant was driving vehicle without license, I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that appellant-claimant was contributory negligent to the extent of 30% in the accident. Said finding appears to be based on proper appreciation of documentary evidence available on record and hence, it does not call for any interference. Submission of learned counsel for appellant that the Claims Tribunal erroneously recorded finding that claimant was contributory negligent in the accident to the extent of 30%, is not sustainable and it is repelled. 11. Document of treatment would show that appellant took treatment as inpatient from 17.12.2016 to 10.1.2017 i.e. for about 24 days. The doctor found fracture of left femur bone 6 of appellant and he also underwent a surgery. In these circumstances, lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal under the head of pain and suffering, loss of amenities and special diet appears to be on lower side. Looking to the nature of injuries i.e. fracture of femur bone, humerous bone and period of treatment, I find it appropriate to award compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards pains and sufferings, Rs.5,000/- for special diet and Rs.5,000/- for loss of amenities. Similarly, considering that even after discharge from hospital, appellant may have taken assistance of other persons for movement, the compensation of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal for attendant charges is also enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. 12. Appellant is resident of District Durg, which comes within the category of ‘A’ Zone area, minimum wage fixed by Competent Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 during that period was Rs.6,000/- per month and hence, income of claimant is assessed as Rs.6,000/- per month. 13. Considering that appellant has suffered fracture injury, he might not have attended the work at least for a period of three months. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal under the head of loss of income during laid up period i.e. for a period of three months, is correct and does not call for any interference. 7 14. Appellant is shown to be resident of village Selud and he took treatment from Government Hospital, Durg and therefore, he might have spent considerable amount towards travelling from village Selud to Government Hospital Durg and as such, appellant-claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards conveyance expenses. It is ordered accordingly. 15. In view of above, claimant/appellant is now entitled for compensation as under;- HEADS : AMOUNT (In Rs.) Loss of income : 18,000=00 Medical expenses : 5,000=00 For pain and sufferings : 10,000=00 For Special Diet : 5,000=00 For loss of amenities : 5,000=00 For conveyance : 5,000=00 For Attendant : 10,000=00 Total: 58,000=00 16. As the appellant-claimant is held to be contributory negligent to the extent of 30%, therefore, after deduction of 30% from the compensation as assessed above i.e. Rs.58,000/-, appellant-claimant is now entitled for a compensation of Rs.40,600/- in place of Rs.27,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% 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 8 above. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 17. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-