1 2025:CGHC:21284 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2008 of 2019 1 - Shri Santram Tarun S/o Ledhwa Ram Aged About 65 Years R/o Near J.J. Hospital, Torwa Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Through Preveen Kumar, Aged About 32 Years, S/o Santram Tarun, R/o Torwa, Police Station Torwa, Tashil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Sailesh Toppo S/o Shantilal Toppo Aged About 18 Years R/o Dewrikhurd, House No. 1320/1, Rai Gali, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver of Motor Cycle Bearing No. C.G.10/Y/6517). 2 - Shantilal Toppo S/o Francis Toppo Aged About 50 Years R/o Dewrikhurd, House No. 1320/1, Rai Gali, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner of Motor Cycle Bearing No. C.G.10/Y/6517). ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Virendra Verma, Adv. On behalf of Mr. Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, Adv. For Respondents : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board ( 08.05 .202 5 ) Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.05.12 17:06:53 +0530 2 1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 16.08.2019 passed by 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 518/2017 whereby a compensation of Rs. 3,43,820/- with interest @ 9% per annum has been awarded in favour of the appellant/claimant for his irreparable loss. 2. The averment in the claim petition, in brief, was that, on 26.07.2016 at about 11:00 am, the appellant Santram Tarun was going towards Gurunanak Chowk to purchase cement by his scooty bearing registration No. CG-10-E-8145, and when he was waiting before the ICICI bank and looking towards his left and right side to cross the road, the respondent No. 1 was driving the vehicle bearing registration No. CG-10-Y-6517 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the vehicle of the appellant, due to which the appellant received fatal injuries on his head, fact, right hand finger and other parts of the body, and he was admitted to Apollo Hospital for treatment. The matter was reported to the police, and a case was registered against the driver/respondent No.1 of the offending vehicle. In the claim application, it was stated that on the date of the accident, the appellant was about 65 years old and due to the said accident, the appellant suffered irreparable loss. Therefore, he filed a claim application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming a total compensation of Rs. 14,66,076/-. 3 3. In the award passed by the Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced thereof, it was held that the appellant was got treated in Apollo Hospital on 26.07.2016 and thereafter he was admitted for 15 days from 26.07.2016 to 10.08.2016 in KIMS Hospital, for which he produced the medical bills vide Ex.A-12 to Ex.A-90 of total Rs. 3,18,819/-. The head of the appellant underwent an operation for two times, and photographs vide Ex.A-9 to Ex.A-11 have been produced with regard to the operation and injury of the head. In this case, the appellant has failed to prove that he has suffered a permanent disability in the said accident by adducing any document. Thus, considering the overall material available on record, the learned Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,43,820/- in the following manner:- Sl. No. Heads Compensation 01 Towards Medical expenses Rs. 3,18,820/- 02 Towards transportation, special diet and assistance Rs. 15,000/- 03 Towards physical and mental agony Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 3,43,820/- 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the appellant sustained grievous injury due to the said accident, and his head was operated two times. He further submits that the awarded amount of compensation is on the lower side, which needs to be enhanced suitably. He also submits that the compensation awarded by the claims tribunal on the head of mental and 4 physical agony is on the lower side. He also submits that no compensation has been awarded on the head of treatment in future and inconvenience in future due to the said injuries. Thus, the appeal is liable to be allowed, and the compensation may be enhanced suitably. 5. No one appeared on behalf of the respondents during final hearing of this case. 6. Heard counsel for the appellant and perused the documents available on record. 7. In the instant case, looking to the material available on record, it is clear that the appellant has failed to prove his permanent disability by adducing any documentary evidence, therefore, he is not entitled to get any compensation on this head. Looking to the statement of Dr. Vijay Kumar (AW-2), who stated that on 26.07.2016, the appellant was brought to KIMS Hospital for treatment. At the time of admission, the patient’s condition was very critical, he had serious head injuries. CT scan revealed a large blood clot in the brain. After admission, the patient was advised to undergo surgery, and the operation was performed. The patient was discharged in stable condition on 10.08.2016. in this operation, due to high pressure inside the brain, the skull bone was kept in the stomach and after the brain pressure reduced with time, on 06.09.2016 a second operation was performed in Sanjeevani Hospital, Bilaspur and 5 the bone kept in the stomach was put back in the head and the patient was discharged from Hospital on 16.09.2016. Thus, considering the the fact that the appellant suffered mental and physical agony for a long time as the skull bone of the appellant got operated for two times and he must have required medical treatment in future, due to the said medical condition, I find it appropriate to enhance the compensation in the following manner:- Sl. No. Heads Compensation by Claims Tribunal Compensation by this Court 01 Towards Medical expenses Rs. 3,18,820/- Rs. 3,18,820/- 02 Towards transportation, special diet and assistance Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 03 Towards physical and mental agony Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 20,000/- 04 Towards treatment expenses in future nil Rs. 20,000/- 05 Towards inconvenience in future nil Rs. 40,000/- Total Rs. 3,43,820/- Rs. 4,13,820/- 8. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 4,13,820/- is recomputed. After deduction of Rs. 3,43,820/- as awarded by the claims Tribunal, the enhanced amount would be Rs. 70,000/- (4,13,820-3,43,820). 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant/appellant shall be entitled to Rs. 70,000/- in addition to what has already been awarded by the claims Tribunal as 6 compensation. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and the rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 10. The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimant in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the Tribunal below. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants resides. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu