1 2025:CGHC:24625 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2108 of 2019 1 - Shekhar Sahu S/o Tularam Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Bhibhouri, P. S. Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Avtar Singh S/o Lakhan Singh R/o Sucheta Contractor Colony (House No. 11) D. Jogi Line, P. S. Supela, District Durg Chhattisgarh...........(Driver Of Tanker No. C. G. 07, Ca 8213), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Jagjeet Singh S/o Kehar Singh R/o Smritinagar (House No. 209) Bhilai, P. S. Bhiali, District Durg Chhattisgarh...........(Owner Of Tanker No. C. G. 07, Ca 8213), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager (Division No. 01), The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Jail Road, Rapur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh...........(Insurer Of Tanker No. C. G. 07, Ca 8213), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate For Non-appellant No. 3 : Mr. H.S. Patel, Advocate along with Mr. Ishwar Chandra, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 16/06/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 02/2025 which is an application for exemption under Order 41 Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 from service of notice upon the Respondents No. 1 & 2. SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Respondents No. 1 & 2 even after service of notice did not appear before the learned Claims Tribunal and they have been proceeded ex parte. The liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is jointly and severely upon the Non-Appellants/Respondents. The Respondent No. 3 is having the first liability to satisfy the amount of compensation and therefore, the appellant poor claimant be exempted from serving the notice upon the Non-Appellant No. 1 & 2. 3. The submission of counsel for the appellant that the Respondent No. 1 & 2 were proceeded ex parte and the first liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company is not in dispute. 4. In view of the aforementioned submissions of counsel for the respective parties, I.A. No. 02/2025 is allowed and the service of notice upon the Respondents No. 1 & 2 is dispensed with. 5. Also heard on I.A. No. 01/2019, which is an application for condonation of delay of 548 days in filing of the appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company vehemently opposes the submission of the counsel for the appellant and the pleadings made in the application. 7. On due consideration of the submission of the counsel for the respective parties as also, the pleadings made in the application and also considering the fact that this appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation and the object of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, I find it appropriate to allow I.A. No. 01/2019. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01/2019 is allowed. Delay of 548 days in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned. 3 8. Appeal is admitted for hearing. 9. With the consent of parties, the case is heard finally. 10.This appeal is filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 15.12.2017 passed by the Sixth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 315/2015. 11.Facts of the case in brief are that, on 16.10.2014 at around 08:00 P.M., the offending vehicle i.e. Tanker bearing registration no. CG 07 CA 8213 driven by the Respondent No. 1 dashed the appellant’s motorcycle bearing registration no. CG 04 CX 6804 near Reliance Petrol Pump, Ring Road No. 2, Raipur and caused accident. In the said accident, appellant and his friend suffered serious injuries, they were taken to Hospital for treatment. Subsequent to the accident, a crime was registered against the Respondent No. 1 bearing Crime No. 386/2014 at P.S. Khamtarai, District – Raipur for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 12.Learned counsel for appellant submits that this appeal is filed seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation on the ground that the learned Claims Tribunal overlooking the documentary and oral evidence with respect to the nature of injury and the treatment taken by the appellant has awarded less amount of compensation. Learned Claims Tribunal has not taken into consideration the severeness of the injuries suffered by him of Fracture of Pelvis with Retroperitoneal Hematoma + Hemaperitanum as mentioned in Ex. P-173 and Ex. P-174 i.e. the Discharge Summary of Narayana Hospital, Raipur where the appellant took treatment. The appellant also took treatment from Heritage Hospital for curing the injuries suffered by him in the motor vehicular accident. Learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding loss of 4 income during the laid down period for only 02 months overlooking the nature of injuries which is much less in the facts of the case because since October, 2014, the appellant continuously took treatment till 17.03.2015 in the concerned hospital and the appellant may not be able to perform his duties even thereafter. The amount of compensation awarded on the other heads is also on the lower side. Hence, the amount of compensation is to be suitably enhanced. 13.On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 vehemently opposes the submission made by the counsel for the appellant and would submit that the learned Claims tribunal on appreciating the documentary and oral evidence brought on record have rightly assessed the income of the deceased and have awarded just compensation, which does not call for any interference. 14.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the claim case. 15.Perusal of the impugned award as also the record of the claim case would show that the appellant suffered motor accidental injuries over his person. From Ex. P/7 till Ex. P/174 are the documents of treatment, purchase of medicines, payment of bills etc. Ex. P/174 is the discharge summary of the Narayana Hospital Raipur. The principal diagnosis is mentioned as ‘acute intestinal obstruction due to post operation additions’ . History of patient illness is further mentioned as ‘complaint of pain in abdomen since 03 days, restlessness, history of old RTA on 16.10.2014 with Fracture Pelvis with Retroperitoneal Hematoma + Hemaperitanum. From the Discharge Summary Ex. P/174, it is appearing that from 24.11.2014, the appellant got admitted in the hospital till 05.12.2014. From Ex. P/7, it is also appearing that the appellant got admitted on 16.10.2014 and remained in the hospital till 04.11.2014. The date of 5 accident is 16.10.2014. From Ex. P/7, it is also appearing that immediately after the accident, the appellant had been admitted from 16.10.2014 till 05.12.2014 except for few days in between in which, the appellant was taking rest at home. 16.Considering the nature of injuries, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in assessing the income for the laid down period of only 02 months. Considering the documents of the hospital, the period of treatment and the history of the patient illness, it is apparent that the appellant suffered serious injuries in the motor accident, including fracture of pelvis and the problem in his abdomen post operation. With the said aforementioned injury as mentioned in Ex. P/173 and Ex. P/174 and looking to the period for which, the appellant took treatment, in the opinion of this Court, the appellant could not have been able to work for a period of about 06 months and therefore, the appellant is entitled for compensation under the loss of income for a period of 06 months. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards attendant, Rs. 10,000/- towards special diet and Rs. 5,000/- towards conveyance, Rs. 10,000/- towards pains and agony which, in the opinion of this Court, are on the lower side. 17.Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar and another reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 has again considered the assessment of compensation in personal injury case resulting in permanent disability and held thus: “5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act”, for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, 6 reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. [See C.K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair [(1969) 3 SCC 64 : AIR 1970 SC 376] , R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. [(1995) 1 SCC 551 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 250] and Baker v. Willoughby [1970 AC 467 : (1970) 2 WLR 50 : (1969) 3 All ER 1528 (HL)] .]. 6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. 7 (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. 7. Assessment of pecuniary damages under Item (i) and under Item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses—Item (iii)—depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages— Items (iv), (v) and (vi)—involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decisions of this Court and the High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability—Item (ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case.” 8 18.The appellant remained admitted in the hospital as per Ex. P/7 from 16.10.2024 to 04.11.2014, Ex. P/174 from 24.11.2014 till 05.12.2014 and as per Ex. P/173 from 15.03.2015 till 17.03.2015 (i.e. total 35 days) and even after discharge from hospital, he could not be able to do the work of his own, looking to the nature of injuries and therefore, I am inclined to award Rs. 20,000/- towards attendant, Rs. 20,000/- towards special diet, Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance and Rs. 40,000/- towards pains and agony and Rs. 25,000/- for loss suffered due to grievous injury. The compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal of Rs. 4,66,854/- towards medical expenses could not be demonstrated by the counsel for the appellant that the award of compensation under the head of medical expenses is in any manner on lower side. He could not point out that the learned Claims Tribunal has omitted in taking into consideration any of the medical bills placed on record and therefore, the award of compensation of Rs. 4,66,854/- under the medical expenses is hereby affirmed. 19.The claimant in his evidence had stated that he was getting salary of Rs. 6,000/- for his work of salesman in cloth shop. This Court held that appellant may not be able to work for 06 months and hence, loss of income during period of treatment would be Rs. 36,000/- (6,000 X 6). It is ordered accordingly. 20. In the facts of the case and discussions as observed, I find appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation. 21.Now, the appellant/claimant will be entitled for the total amount of compensation which is as under:- • Rs. 6,17,854/- [4,66,854 (medical expenses) + 20,000 (special diet) + 20,000 (attendant) + 10,000 (conveyance expenses) + 40,000 (pains and sufferings) + 25,000 (for grievous injury) + 36,000 (loss of income during period of treatment)] 9 22.This enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 23.Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellant as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above. 24.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. 25.Certified copy as per rules. Sd/---/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey