2025:CGHC:43729 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.A.(C) No. 37 of 2019 Dhanesh Kumar Kothari S/o Ankalu Ram Kothari F Aged About 31 Years R/ovillage Saroli Post Dokla Police Station Khadgaon Tahsil Mohla District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant Versus 1. Hemant Sahu S/o Siyaram Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Aari ,tahsil And Police Station Dongargaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Driver), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2. Motilal Sahu S/o Ramsingh Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Sahu Tradrs Propiter Motilal Sahu Nandai Chowk Rajanandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3. Relaince General Insurance Co. Ltd Office 570 Naigaon Cross Raod Next To Rayal Industrial State Wadala (W) Mambai Branch Office ,plot No. 29, Nehru Nagar (E) Commercial Complex Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh (Insurer), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents ______________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Shri R.V. Rajwade, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Shri Saurabh Sharma and Shri Saurabh Gupta, Advocates. ______________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 28 /08/2025 1. Challenge in this appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) by the appellant / claimant is against the award dated 10/09/2018 passed by I Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Claim Case No. - 118 / 2017. ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.09.07 15:24:48 +0530 -2- 2. By the impugned award, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 03,12,000/- in favour of the appellant/claimant on account of injury sustained by him in an accident that occurred on 30/01/2014 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. KA/01/MC/5253. Driven by respondent No. 1 / driver, owned by respondent No.2 / owner and insured with respondent No.3 / Insurance Company. 3. As per pleadings of the claim application, filed under section 166 of the MV Act, the accident has occurred on 30/01/2014 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. KA/01/MC/5253 and was dashed the standing Vehicle Bus bearing Registration No. CG/08/M/0210 by the offending vehicle resulting into permanent disablement of the appellant/claimant. He claimed total compensation Rs.15,35,400/-. The claimant was aged at bout 24 years, working as driver and was earning Rs.11,000/- per month. 4. The claim application was resisted by the respondent on various grounds. The respondent No. 3 / Insurance Company took a plea that there is a violation of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy, therefore the insurance company may be exonerated. 5. On the basis of the broad pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed as many as 5 issues and decided the same in favour of the appellant / claimant and awarded the above stated compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned tribunal had wrongly taken income of the deceased to Rs.60,000/- per annum, appellant has become permanent disable person and the amount on other head is also on lower side which requires enhancement by this Court. -3- 7. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 /Insurance Company supports the award and submits that the appellant / claimant could not brought any document on record to prove the income of the appellant / claimant, therefore just compensation has been awarded which does not require any interference. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the record. 9. The first point which come for determination as to whether finding of the learned tribunal that the appellant/claimant had lost 20% earning capacity is correct or not. Though doctor has been examined who has given the disability certificate to the tune of 40%. However, the said certificate was only for the purpose of particular organ i.e. Leg, not for the entire body. Apart from this, learned Tribunal has also found that if proper physiotherapy is given, possibility of reduction of the disability and also found that only a fractured was caused in the leg and the doctor has not opined that there is any loss of earning capacity of the appellant. Hence this finding is affirm. 10.In the case in hand, the accident occurred on 30/01/2014, therefore, the notional income, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence and relevant material available on record. The age of of the appellant was 28 years at the time of the accident and the learned Tribunal was found the age of the appellant 31 years, learned tribunal committed an error of taking the age of the appellant. Therefore taking the age of the appellant to 28 years, this Court has taken monthly income of the appellant / claimant to Rs.6,000/- per month. 11. This court is reassessing the compensation in the following manner:- -4- S.No. Head Calculat ion 1. Monthly Income Rs. 6,000/- 2. Yearly income Rs.72,000/- (6000 x 12) 3. 40% future prospect Rs.28,000/- 4. Total yearly income Rs.1,00,800/- 5. 20% loss of earning Rs.20,160/- 6. Multiplier of 17 applied to assess loss of earning Rs.03,42,720/- 7. Medical expenses Rs.83,000/- 8. Loss of income during treatment Rs.09,000/- 9. Future treatment Rs.10,000/- 10. Transportation Charge Rs.5000/- 11. Nutritional Diet Rs.5000/- Total compensation Rs. 04,54,720/- 12. After deducting Rs.03,12,000/- as awarded by learned Tribunal, the appellant / claimant held entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs. 01,42,720/- with 6% interest from the date of appeal i.e 10/12/2018 till realization to be paid by respondent No. 3 / Insurance Company within 60 days from copy of receipt of this order. 13. After depositing being made, 75% shall be invested in the name of appellant as fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank for a period of 2 years. Remaining amount shall be paid to appellant by bank transaction / account payee cheque. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the award impugned to the above extent. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge -/-Ashish