1 2025:CGHC:25013 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2045 of 2019 1 - Maniklal Uike S/o Sukhuram Uike Aged About 28 Years R/o Karathi (Paddapara), Tahsil Bhanupratappur, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Shanker Chand Mallik S/o Dhirendra Mallik Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Thanapara, Tahsil Durgukondal, District Uttar Bastar Kanker. (Driver And Owner), District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 2 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Branch Manager, Mandal Office Chouhan State First Floor Supela, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Non-appellants For Appellant : Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate For Non-appellant No. 1 : Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate For Non-appellant No. 2 : Mr. Azad Siddique, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 17/06/2025 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 14.01.2019 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhanupratappur, District – North Baster Kanker (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 36/2018 for the injuries suffered by the appellant resulting into permanent disability. The learned Claims SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,40,700/- as compensation to the appellant. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 27.06.2017 at about 06:00 P.M., when the applicant/claim along with his friend namely Roshan Padda was coming to his home at Karathi on their motorcycle, at that time, the offending vehicle i.e Bolero bearing registration no. CG 04 DB 1760 which was being driven by the Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the appellant’s motorcycle and caused accident. In the said accident, appellant suffered serious injuries and she was taken to hospital for treatment. 3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal awarded a meagre amount of compensation overlooking the Disability Certificate mentioning 45% locomotor disability, have assessed the loss of earning capacity to the tune of 15% only which is erroneous in the facts of the case. She next contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has erroneously assessed the income of the appellant as Rs. 4,500/- per month only overlooking the income certificate produced and the evidence of the employer namely, Devashish Mazumdar (AW-2) of whose truck, the appellant was driving prior to the date of accident and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month (Rs. 16,500/- as Salary and Rs. 3,500/- as daily allowance). The amount of compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side. Hence, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 vehemently opposes the submission made by the counsel for the appellant and would submit that learned Claims Tribunal in the facts of the case has awarded just and proper compensation. The claimants/appellants though have submitted the Disability Certificate (Ex. 3 P/29), however, the claimants have not examined any doctor to prove the same, which was taken note of by the Tribunal for assessing the loss of earning capacity. It is further contended that the appellant failed to prove the nature of occupation by producing cogent and admissible piece of evidence and further, the income of Rs. 16,500/- from the occupation of driver. The appellant has not produced the copy of driving license, hence, the income assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal in the facts of the case is just and proper. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the claim case. 6. So far as the first ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant with respect to the assessment of loss of earning capacity due to permanent disability is concerned, undisputedly, the appellant met with an accident and suffered injury on his person. The documents of the hospital exhibited including discharge ticket of Community Health Centre, Bhanupratappur would show that the appellant suffered fracture injuries over his leg. The stitching was done at top femur right and nailing of the same. The date of admission at Rameshwaram Hospital, Dhamtari would show that the appellant got admitted himself on 27.06.2017 and was discharged on 01.08.2017. Thereafter, the appellant again took treatment in the month of January, 2019. The appellant was a young boy aged about 19 years, submitted Disability Certificate (Ex. P/29) under the seal of the Medical Board, however none of the doctors of Medical Board is examined to prove the Disability Certificate. True it is, that the percentage of disability in the disability certificate assessed by the Medical Board would not be same towards the loss of earning capacity of a person/injured. Loss of 4 earning capacity may differ than that what is mentioned percentage of disability in the Disability Certificate (Ex. P/29) as it was being issued referring to the part of the body injured. The percentage of earning capacity is to be considered, considering the disability with regard to whole body and also to be considered in view of the nature of occupation in which, the claimant/injured was engaged. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal considered the disability certificate Ex. P/29, however, taking note of the fact, neither doctor of Medical Board nor treating doctor was examined, has not considered the loss of earning capacity of 45% as mentioned in Ex. P/29. The Tribunal considering the part of the body suffered injury has assessed loss of earning capacity as 15%, therefore, I do not find any good ground to accept the submission of the counsel for the appellant for assessing loss of earning capacity as mentioned in Ex. P/29 and take a different view. 8. In the case at hand, though the pleading is that he was engaged in the profession of driving, however, no driving license has been produced before the learned Claims Tribunal, more so, when the stand is taken that the appellant was driving a truck, prior to the date of accident. As the copy of driving license authorizing the appellant to drive the heavy goods vehicle is not available, the pleadings made in this regard and the submissions of the appellant in his evidence that prior to date of accident, he was working as driver of heavy goods vehicle could not be accepted and accordingly, the salary certificate (Ex. P/16) brought on record and the evidence of Devashish Mazumdar (AW -2) cannot be accepted to prove the income. The witness Devashish Mazumdar (AW -2) has not placed any documentary evidence that he was paying the 5 amount of Rs. 16,500/- towards the monthly salary to the appellant against his work of driving. 9. In view of the aforementioned evidence available on record and facts of the case, I am of the view that the learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in disbelieving the nature of occupation and the income as mentioned in the evidence of the Appellant as well as Devashish Mazumdar (AW -2). In the aforementioned facts of the case, income of the appellant is to be assessed taking his occupation as one of a “Labourer”. The accident is of 22.06.2017 and therefore, the notional income of the appellant/Labourer is to be assessed keeping in mind the price index, cost of living, wage structure prevailing within the area on which the appellant is residing or can also take the help of the minimum-wages fixed by the competent authority of the State under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Accordingly, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the appellant taking help of the minimum-wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 prevailing within the State, treating the appellant to be a Labourer. Therefore, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the appellant as Rs. 6,500/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 10. The learned Claims Tribunal has not added any amount of compensation towards the loss of future prospects. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sidram Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr. reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439 has held that in case of permanent disability also, there shall be addition of the percentage of income towards the future prospects and held thus:- 6 “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.” 11. The learned Claims Tribunal has though awarded the amount of Rs. 9,000/- towards the loss of income during the laid down period for 02 months, however, it is to be assessed taking the enhanced income as assessed in the preceding paragraph. The amount of compensation towards the loss of income due to the permanent disability is to be assessed by the multiplier system. Learned Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards the pains and sufferings which in the opinion of this Court, looking to the nature of injuries suffered is on the 7 lower side. Accordingly, the amount awarded under the head of pains and sufferings is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/-, the amount of Rs. 5,000/- awarded under the head of nutritious diet is enhanced to Rs. 8000. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards the attendant. In the facts of the case, for the reasons as mentioned, as the appellant could not be able to do the work for 02 months, I find it appropriate to award Rs. 10,000/- towards attendant. Learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding the amount towards the conveyance expenses. The documents forming part of the record of the claims case and exhibited would show that the appellant has taken treatment from the hospital situated at Dhamtari District also, whereas, he is a resident of Tehsil – Bhanupratappur, District – North Baster Kanker, therefore, I find it appropriate to award Rs. 10,000/- as conveyance expenses. 12. For the foregoing discussion, I find it appropriate to recompute the amount of compensation. 13. The income of the appellant is assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal based on the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 notified by the competent authority as Rs. 6,206/- treating the appellant to be Labourer. Hence, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the appellant as Rs. 6,500/- per month. 14. In the case at hand, the age of the deceased is 28 years and therefore, there shall enhancement of 40% towards the loss of future prospects. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 9,100/- (6500+2600) and the yearly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 1,09,200/- (9100X12). The appellant is aged about 28 years and therefore, the multiplier of 17 as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi 8 Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 would be applicable, therefore, the total income of the deceased would come to Rs. 18,56,400/- (1,09,200 X 17). As this Court has assessed the loss of earning of the appellant to the extent of 15% and therefore, the 15% of the loss of income would come to Rs. 2,78,460/- (15% of 18,56,400) of Apart from the loss of income of Rs. 2,78,460/-, the appellant would also be entitled for Rs. 79,000/- towards medical expenses which is already awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. 15.Now, the appellant/claimant will be entitled for the total amount of compensation which is as under:- • Rs. 4,00,460/- [2,78,460 (loss of earning capacity) + 79,000 (medical expenses) + 15,000 (pains and sufferings) + 8,000 (nutritious diet) + 10000 (attendant) + 10000 (conveyance expenses)] 16. This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 17. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellant as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above. 18. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. 19. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/-/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey