1 / 7 2025:CGHC:22652 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2007 of 2019 • Aman Verma S/o Ajay Verma Aged About 24 Years R/o Through Sandeep Verma, Rajeev Gandhi Chowk Ravi Heights Jarhabhatha, Thana - Civil Line, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Claimant ), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant/ Claimant versus 1. Santosh Kumar Dhruw S/o Late Bodhan Dhruw Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 2 Khuteri Post Tusda Thana - Kotwali Mahasmund, Tahsil And District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. (Driver of the Offending Vehicle Bus No. C. G. 04 / E / 0723) 2. Ravinder Pal Singh S/o Inder Pal Singh, R/o House No. 163, Main Road Lalpur Bagbahara, Tahsil And District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ( Registered Owner of the Offending Vehicle Bus No. C. G. 04 / E / 0723). 3. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Rama Trade Center 2nd Floor, In Front Of Rajeev Plaza Old Bus Stand Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of the Offending Vehicle Bus No. C. G. 04 / E / 0723) --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate with Ms. Shaleeni Jangde, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 09/06/2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 07.09.2019 passed by Learned Six Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 731/2017, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA Date: 2025.06.12 15:51:22 +0530 2 / 7 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 4,50,000/- as compensation in injury case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 06.09.2017 when applicant/ appellant was returning home from the coaching centre with Chandrakala Verma sitting as pillion rider of his scooty vehicle number CG 04 HQ 8284, non-applicant No. 1/ driver of the Bus bearing registration No. CG04 E 0723 driving the bus rashly and negligently dashed the scooty of applicant and caused accident, due to which the applicant suffered serious injuries and was admitted to Community Health Centre, Bagbahra, District Mahasamund. The report of the accident was lodged against non-applicant No. 1 in Police Station-Bagbahara, District-Mahasamund. 3. Appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking ₹ 31,50,000/- as compensation pleading therein that on the date of accident he was about 24 years of age, was an able bodied person. He was running a coaching centre and was earning a monthly income of ₹ 30,000/-. Due to accident, he has become permanently disabled and is unable to work to earn his livelihood. 4. Respondent No. 1 & 2 /Non-applicant No. 1 & 2-Driver and the owner of the bus submitted their reply, denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further stated that the applicant himself is responsible for the accident, as he drove the vehicle scooty no. CG 04 HQ/8284 negligently without a valid driving license and met with an accident due to which he and the pillion rider got injured. It is stated that on the date of the accident, non-applicant no. 1 was a possessing a valid driving license. Non-applicant no. 2 is a registered owner of the bus, it was insured with non-applicant no. 3 insurance company, therefore, liability if any to pay compensation would be of non-applicant No. 3. 3 / 7 5. Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company also filed its reply, denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the scooter driver/ applicant himself who was not possessing a valid and effective driving license at the time fo accident. The accident was not informed to the insurance company. It is stated that Non-applicant No. 3 is not responsible for payment of compensation. Since the applicant has not made the owner of the scooty driven by him and the insurance company of the said scooty a party in the case, the case is not maintainable for want of necessary parties. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that appellant suffered grievous injuries resulting in permanent disability due to accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of bus by non-applicant 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy, contributory negligence and non-joinder of the parties were not found to be proved, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 4,50,000/- as total compensation with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application. 7. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre sum of compensation in the facts of the case. Learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation towards permanent disability suffered by the appellant though Disability certificate issued by the medical board is produced by appellant as Ext. P-7 mentioning 50% permanent disability on left leg and proved by doctor AW-2. He next contended that the Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of appellant/ injured on lower side overlooking the documents Ext. P-171 & 172 which is declaration form with respect to the income of the year 2015-16 and 2016-17. He also contended that the Claims Tribunal has awarded the amount of 4 / 7 compensation under the heads of pain and suffering, loss of income during laid down period, attendant and special diet on lower side overlooking the nature of injuries suffered by appellant in motor vehicular accident. The amount of compensation awarded under the medical expenses is also on lower side, according to the pleadings and the evidence of appellant he incurred expenses of about ₹ 7 Lakh whereas the Claims Tribunal has only awarded ₹ 4 Lakh. Therefore, looking to the nature of work and injury suffered by appellant, the amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal considering entirety of the facts and circumstance of the case has awarded just and proper compensation which does not call for any interference of this Court. He also submits that the Claims Tribunal has assigned reasons for not accepting all the medical bills and assigned specific reason that repeated/ duplicate medical claim/ bills have been submitted by the appellant and has rightly assessed the expenditure towards medical treatment as ₹ 4 Lakh. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. 10. Sofar as the submission of learned counsel for appellant with respect to awarding less amount of compensation under the head of medical expenses is concerned, the Tribunal in paragraph-15 of the impugned award has assigned reasons for not awarding entire amount of the bills claimed. Tribunal has recorded a finding that the appellant has submitted bills twice for seeking excessive amount of compensation towards medical expanses. It is also recorded that the medical claim against Ext. P-58 to P-62 the appellant has claimed refund but even then the amount has been claimed against those bills again. Claims Tribunal considering overall act of appellant in 5 / 7 producing the bills twice and further also submitted the bills for claim of the amount taken refund, has assessed medical expenses of ₹ 4 Lakh. Learned counsel for appellant could not able to point out any error or perversity in the such finding of the Tribunal, hence, I do not find any error in the said finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal. 11. Sofar as the second submission made by learned counsel for appellant with respect to assessment of income of appellant is concerned, appellant expect his self statement and the pleadings in the claim application that he was earning ₹ 30,000/- per month by running coaching centre has not submitted any document with respect to registration of coaching centre nor has any other independent witness has been examined to prove that the appellant was engaged in running coaching centre. However, before the Claims Tribunal appellant has submitted Ext. P-171 & 172 which is income tax returns submitted by him and verified by the income tax officer Mr. Devakant Patra. The said document is of the period after the accident. Appellant has not specifically pleaded that since when he was running coaching centre and has not produced document/ income tax returns of the financial year prior to the date of accident. Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of appellant as ₹ 10,000/- per month considering the fact that the appellant is an educated person and also submitted income tax returns. Therefore, in the opinion of this court the income of an educated person cannot be equated with the income of an skilled labourer and therefore I find it appropriate to assess the income of appellant as ₹ 15,000/- per month notionally instead of ₹ 10,000/- per month. 12. Claims Tribunal has awarded ₹ 5,000/- towards pain and suffering. From the record, it is appearing that the appellant took treatment as in-patient in Narayana Hospital, Raipur from 06.09.2017 to 24.09.2017 which is less than a month, however, the nature of injury which is reflecting from the documents to have been suffered by the appellant is “fracture of left femur with vascular 6 / 7 injury (femoral artery vein) with right CPN injury”. Considering the period of treatment as in-patient and the nature of injury suffered, in the opinion of this Court, Claims Tribunal has awarded less amount of compensation under the head of pain and suffering which requires to be enhanced. Accordingly, the amount of compensation under the head of pain and suffering is enhanced to ₹ 20,000/- instead of ₹ 5,000/-. Tribunal in the facts of the case has rightly assessed loss of income during laid down period of three months, however, since this Court has assessed the income of appellant as ₹ 15,000/- considering the evidence available on record, hence, the loss of income would be ₹ 45,000/- instead of ₹ 30,000/-. Further the amount of compensation under the head of attendant, conveyance expenses and special diet also needs to be enhanced, it is enhanced to ₹ 10,000/- each respectively, for the aforementioned period. The doctor in his evidence has not specifically stated that what difficulty, the appellant will face post treatment with the nature of disability and in the disability certificate the doctor has only mentioned cause as implant for assessing 50% permanent disability, which cannot be considered to be a disability as recorded unless and until proved by admissible piece of evidence that due to injury appellant is facing problem in discharging his work and other day to day activities. In absence of such specific evidence, in the opinion of this Court, no amount of compensation can be awarded towards loss of amenities in life as argued by the counsel for appellant. 13. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation requires recomputation, which is as under. Heads under which the amount is awarded Amount Medical Expenses ₹ 4,00,000 Pain and suffering ₹ 20,000 Loss of income (for 3 months) ₹ 45,000 (₹ 15,000x3) 7 / 7 Special Diet ₹ 10,000 Attendant ₹ 10,000 Conveyance expanses ₹ 10,000 Total ₹ 4,95,000/- 14. Now the appellant-claimant shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 4,95,000/- instead of ₹ 4,50,000/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount paid to the appellant pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. 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