1 / 8 2025:CGHC:40869 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 144 of 2024 • Sujit Singh S/o Jai Prakash Singh Aged About 24 Years R/o House No. G/50, Gate No. 1, JCPL, Jindal Vihar Colony, Tahsil And Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Present Address Village Sitapur, Near Canal, First Puliya, Post Gorkha, P.S. Kotra Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) --- Appellant/ Applicant-claimant versus 1. Rajesh Raj Baghel S/o Vinod Baghel Aged About 28 Years R/o School Para, P.S. Belsonda, Tahsil And Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) (Owner of Vehicle Motor Cycle TVS Victor No. CG 04 ME 2355) 2. Gyaneshwar Baghel @ Lal S/o Vinod Baghel Aged About 17 Years R/o Schoolpara, P.S. Belsonda, Tahsil And Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) Through Legal Guardian Father Vinod Baghel, R/o Schoolpara, P.S. Belsonda, Tehsil And Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) (Driver of Vehicle Motor Cycle TVS Victor No. CG 04 ME 2355) 3. Reliance General Insurance Company Manager/officer In-Charge, Head Office 5th Floor, National Corporate Park Office Number 516, G.E. Road, Gitanagar, Samta Colony, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer of Vehicle Motor Cycle TVS Victor No. CG 04 ME 2355 ) --- Respondents/ Non-applicants (cause title is taken from Case Information System) ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : None present, though served. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 13/08/2025 1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) challenging the impugned award dated 02.11.2023 PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 8 passed by Learned Eighth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 141/2021, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 13,73,033/- as compensation in a motor accidental injury case with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization and fastened liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon non-applicant No. 1-owner. 2. Claimant has filed this appeal with a prayer seeking enhancement of amount of compensation and also to issue direction to Respondent No. 3- Insurance company to first pay the amount of compensation and thereafter recover the same from the owner and driver of the motorcycle bearing number CG04-ME-2355 (hereinafter referred to as “offending motorcycle”). 3. Facts of accident, motor accidental injury suffered by claimant / appellant, non-applicant No. 1 to be owner, non-applicant No. 2 to be driver and also non-applicant No. 3 being insurer of the offending vehicle is not in dispute. Appellant-insurance company is exonerated on the ground that on the date of accident non-applicant No. 2, driver of offending motorcycle, was not possessed with valid and effective driving licence. 4. In the aforementioned facts of the case, looking to the nature of relief and prayer made by the learned counsel for appellant, I am not adverting to the facts of accident as pleaded in the claim application, reply submitted by the parties before the Claims Tribunal and further discussed by the Claims Tribunal in its impugned award but only considering the submission made by learned counsel for appellant as also Respondent No. 3 on the aforementioned two submission made by learned counsel for appellant. 3 / 8 5. Learned counsel for appellant-claimant would submit that in the motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of offending motorcycle by non-applicant No. 2/ Respondent No. 2, claimant suffered grievous head injury apart from other injuries. After accident, appellant was admitted in the hospital but after discharge he suffered complication and was again admitted to hospital. Total expenditure incurred in treatment of the claimant as assessed by the Claims Tribunal was ₹ 12,72,033, however, Claims Tribunal erred in awarding less amount of compensation towards conveyance expenses, attendant and loss of income during period of treatment. Compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering is also much less. He lastly contended that as the offending motorcycle was insured by Respondent No. 3 on the date of accident, its exoneration is only on the ground that driver of offending motorcycle was not possessed with valid and effective driving licence and therefore direction be issued to Respondent No. 3 -Insurance Company to first pay the amount of compensation and thereafter to recover the same from owner and driver. 6. Submission made by learned counsel for appellant is opposed by Respondent No. 3. It is further submitted that as the Claims Tribunal recorded a finding that Respondent No. 2/ non-applicant No. 2 was not possessed with valid and effective driving licence, hence, exoneration of insurance company from its liability is just and proper in the facts of the case. He submits that compensation awarded to claimant is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 8. So far as the submission of learned counsel for appellant for assessment of amount of compensation towards medical expenses is concerned, learned 4 / 8 counsel for appellant could not able to point out as to the awarded amount of ₹ 12,72,033 is less in any manner. He also could not able to point out that any of the bills towards treatment of appellant in the hospital exhibited, was not considered by the Claims Tribunal or escaped consideration. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I do not find any error in awarding compensation of ₹ 12,72,033 towards medical expenses to claimant. 9. Claims Tribunal taking note of the fact that the claimant was resident of Raigarh, he took treatment at Shree Narayana Hospital at Raipur and Apollo Hospital at Bilaspur, has awarded ₹ 10,000 towards conveyance expenses which in the opinion of this Court, looking to the nature of injury suffered to claimant is on lower side, hence, I find it appropriate to award ₹ 25,000 towards conveyance expenses instead of ₹ 10,000 as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. 10. Appellant suffered Head Injury with Right Temporal Contusion with Skull Base Fracture with DAI with Aspiration Pneumonia Sepsis. Initially appellant was admitted in the hospital on 04.02.2019 and discharged on 06.03.2019. However, appellant-claimant due to Aspiration Pneumonic Sepsis was again admitted in Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur on 08.03.2019 and discharged on 15.03.2019 in which the principle diagnosis is mentioned as Aspiration Pneumonia With Sepsis in a Followup Case of RTA with Head Injury. Further he was again admitted at Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur on 17.03.2019 and discharged on 31.03.2019. Though aforementioned two discharge summaries are not exhibited, however, they are available in record at page number 70 & 72. To assess just and fair compensation, I am of the view that looking to the nature of injury and continuous treatment as reflecting from the documents, aforementioned two documents can be considered. Claims Tribunal has awarded only ₹ 10,000 towards special diet and ₹ 10,000 towards attendant which in the facts of the case appears 5 / 8 to be less considering the nature of injury, ie., head injury and fracture of skull, I find it appropriate to award ₹ 20,000 towards special diet. Considering that the claimant might have needed assistant of some other person for a period of two months, the expenditure to be incurred upon attendant would be as per the minimum wages paid to the labouer for c- zone area which, as per the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was fixed as ₹ 8140 per month between the period during date of accident and therefore compensation to be awarded towards attendant would be ₹ 16,280 (₹ 8140X2). 11. Appellant-claimant on the date of accident was a student of final year, therefore, considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Master Ayush v. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & another, reported in (2022) 7 SCC 738, relying upon its decision in case of Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand & ors, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that for computing amount of compensation income of non-earning person can be taken on notional basis keeping in mind wages prevailing on the date of accident. In the case at hand, as there is no suggestive piece of evidence available to show the wages prevailing at the place where claimant is resident of and therefore I find it appropriate to take help of the minimum wages structure fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act 1948 during the period from 01.10.2018 to 31.03.2019 of B-zone area as ₹ 8,400 per month. Period of loss of income considered by the Claims Tribunal is 06 months, therefore, loss of income will come to ₹ 50,400 (₹ 8400x6). 12. Claims Tribunal has awarded ₹ 25,000 towards pain and suffering which is enhanced to ₹ 35,000 and further ₹ 20,000 is awarded towards grievous injuries as suffered by claimant. 6 / 8 13. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellant-claimant requires recomputation, which is as under. Particulars Compensation Medical Expenses (maintained) ₹ 12,72,033/- Conveyance expenses (enhanced) ₹ 25,000/- Special Diet (enhanced) ₹ 20,000/- Attender cost (enhanced) ₹ 16,280/- Loss of income for 06 months ₹ 50,400/- Pain and Suffering (enhanced) ₹ 35,000/- Grievous injuries ₹ 20,000/- Total ₹ 14,38,713/- 14. Now the appellant-claimant shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 14,38,713 instead of ₹ 13,73,033 as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. • Any amount paid to the appellant-claimant pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. • Rest of the conditions of the impugned award as imposed by the Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. 15. So far as the submission of learned counsel for appellant with regard to issuance of direction to pay and recover, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamanna and another vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported in 2018 (9) SCC 650 has considered the issue with regard to issuance of direction to insurance company of pay and recover where breach of policy conditions was on account of driver not holding valid and effective driving licence and held thus: “13. Since the reference to the larger Bench in Parvathneni case [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvathneni, (2009) 8 SCC 785 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 7 / 8 568 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 943] has been disposed of by keeping the questions of law open to be decided in an appropriate case, presently the decision in Swaran Singh case [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] followed in Laxmi Narain Dhut [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC 700 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 142] and other cases hold the field. The award passed by the Tribunal directing the insurance company to pay the compensation amount awarded to the claimants and thereafter, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in question, is in accordance with the judgment passed by this Court in Swaran Singh [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] and Laxmi Narain Dhut [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC 700 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 142] cases. While so, in our view, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the award passed by the Tribunal directing the first respondent to pay and recover from the owner of the vehicle. The impugned judgment [Shamanna v. Laxman, 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 6928] of the High Court exonerating the insurance company from its liability and directing the claimants to recover the compensation from the owner of the vehicle is set aside and the award passed by the Tribunal is restored.” 16. Considering the facts of the case, where the insurance company was exonerated on the ground that driver of the offending motorcycle was not possessed with valid and effective driving licence and the decision of Hon’le Supreme Court in the case of Shamanna (supra), upholding the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal of exoneration of insurance company from its liability, insurance company ie., Respondent No. 3 is directed to first pay entire amount of compensation as computed and thereafter to recover the same from the driver and owner of the offending motorcycle in accordance with law. 17. For recovery of amount of compensation, so deposited by the Insurance Company, from owner and driver of the offending motorcycle it will not be required to file separate proceeding but can be recovered in the same 8 / 8 proceeding by filing execution proceeding as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Nanjappan reported in (2004) 13 SCC 224. 18. Consequently, appeal filed by appellant-claimant is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn