1 2025:CGHC:14739 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MAC No. 99 of 2020 • Gautam Jogi S/o Late Narayan Singh Aged About 26 Years Occupation Cloth Business, R/o Village Lahpatra, Near Gandhi Chowk, Police Station Lakhanpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ---Appellant/claimant VERSUS 1. Mangal Sai Prajapti S/o Shri Krishna Prajapti Aged About 28 Years Profession Director Pathology Lab, Gurukripa Pathology Lab, R/o Infront Of Community Health Center, Lakhanpur, Bazar Para Road, Police Station And Tahsil Lakhapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Driver)., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2. Anil Tirky S/o Jaduram Tirky Aged About 26 Years Occupation Vehicle Owner, R/o Manikprakashpur, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3. The Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company Ltd, Through Branch Manager, 2nd Floor 205 Mm Silver Plaza, Infront Of Udyog Bhavan, Ring Rode Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ----Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 27/03/2025 1. Heard Mr. Divyanand Patel, learned counsel for appellant and Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3. 2. There is no representation on behalf of Respondents No. 1 & 2, though served. PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 3. With the consent of the parties, case is heard finally. 4. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 24.06.2019 passed by Learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case no. 194/2016, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 1,04,130/- as compensation in injury case. 5. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 09.03.2016, appellant went to Rajpuri from Lakhanpur for doing weekly market for earning his livelihood, when he was waiting for a bus to go home and standing on the roadside, at around 8.00 pm, non-applicant No. 1 while driving motorcycle number CG15-CX-6078 (“offending vehicle”) owned by the non-applicant No.2 in a rash, negligent manner, caused an accident and hit the appellant due to which the appellant fell down and became unconscious. In the accident, he suffered internal head injuries and both the ribs in the chest suffered serious damage and bone fractures, for which he had to undergo surgery and had to undergo treatment for a long time. 6. Appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking ₹ 22,00,000/- as total compensation pleading therein that on the date of accident he was an able bodied person doing the work of trading clothes in weekly and daily markets and earning 20,000/- per ₹ month. Due to permanent disability suffered by him in the aforementioned accident he is not able to do his work to earn his livelihood. His family members are dependents on his income. As also he expended about Four Lakhs Rupees for his treatment. 3 7. Non-applicants No. 1 & 2 filed reply to the claim application denying all the adverse pleadings made therein. It is further pleaded that the FIR had been lodged by appellant on 28.03.2016 ie. after about 20 days of the accident against an unknown vehicle and statement of appellant was recorded by the Lakhanpur police station on that date. The FIR lodged by the appellant and his statement are contradictory in itself. No accident was caused by Non-applicant No.1 nor has any injury been caused to the appellant after the accident. The offending vehicle is insured by Non-applicant No. 3. On the date of the accident, non- applicant No. 1 was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. It is further stated that if in any way the court reaches the conclusion that the accident has been caused to the appellant by the said offending vehicle on the date of the accident, then Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company will be liable in this regard and prayed for dismissal of claim filed against them. 8. Non-applicant 3/ Insurance Company submitted reply to claim application denying the pleadings made therein, it was further pleaded that the report has been lodged on 28.03.2016 against an unknown vehicle, whereas the accident is stated to be caused on 09.03.2016. On the date of accident, the offending vehicle was driven in violation of its insurance policy conditions. The owner of the offending vehicle, non- applicant No. 2, handed over the said vehicle to non-applicant No. 1, who did not have a valid and effective license to drive the said vehicle and stated that the claim filed against it be dismissed. 9. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that appellant suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non- 4 applicant 1. Permanent disability of appellant was not found to be proved. Breach of policy conditions, contributory negligence was also not found to be proved. Tribunal upon assessing income of appellant as ₹ 4,500/- per month calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 1,04,130/- as total compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application. 10. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre sum of compensation. He submits that appellant suffered internal head injuries and both the ribs in the chest suffered serious damage bone fractures for which he was admitted in Narayana Hospital, Raipur from 09.03.2016 to 22.03.2016 and underwent surgery. Due to permanent disability, the appellant has suffered loss of income and future growth in business. He submits that apart from medical bills Tribunal awarded consolidated amount of 20,000/- on the head ₹ s of pain and sufferings, 2,000/- for ₹ special diet and 3,000/- for attendant ₹ which are on lower side, looking to the documents placed on record. Appellant was resident of village Lahpatra District Surguja but he took treatment at Narayana Hospital, Raipur. He submits that the amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 11. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellants and further submits that the amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper in the facts of the case, which does not call for any interference. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record of claim case. 13. Perusal of record would show that the date of accident is 09.03.2016, 5 accident took place at Rajpuri. After the accident, appellant took treatment as in-patient from 09.03.2016 to 22.03.2016 at Narayana Hospital, Raipur. Annexure A-9, OPD Case Paper mentions left side multiple rib fracture in a road traffic accident. Learned Claims Tribunal has also considered the nature of injury to be head injury and rib fracture, however, the Tribunal had only considered loss of income for one month without considering that the appellant-injured was doing business of selling clothes in the market and looking to the nature of injury and continuous treatment appellant might not have worked for about three months. Therefore, I find it appropriate to award loss of income for a period of 03 months instead of 01 month. 14. Sofar as the income of appellant assessed by the Claims Tribunal of ₹ 4,500/- per month in absence of proof of income is concerned, true it is that when the appellant/claimant failed to prove income by bringing admissible piece of evidence, the courts has to take the income on notional basis considering the date of accident, place of accident and other like factors The Tribunals are also expected to take income based on the minimum wages as fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the purpose of calculating the compensation. On the date of accident, ie., 09.03.2016 the minimum wages prevailing for an unskilled labourer is 5,860/- per month which ₹ is not disputed by the counsel for Respondent No. 3, in fact, he placed copy of the notification for consideration of this Court. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I find it appropriate to accept the income of appellant to the tune of 5,860/- per month treating him to ₹ be an unskilled labourer. 15. Claims Tribunal has awarded the amount of compensation on other 6 heads ie., medical expenses ₹ 62,630/-, conveyance expenses ₹ 12,000/- and pain and sufferings 20,000/- which is not disputed by ₹ the counsel for appellant to be on lower side. However, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal of 3,000/- ₹ towards attendant and 2,000/- for special diet, in the opinion of this Court is on lower ₹ side in the facts of the case where this court has considered that the appellant could not able to do his work for a period of three months, therefore, the amount of compensation awarded towards attendant is enhanced to 5,000/- and for special diet it is enhanced to 8,000/- ₹ ₹ and further the amount already awarded by the Claims Tribunal towards pains and sufferings and other heads of ₹ 20,000/- will remain as it is. 16. Now the appellant-claimant shall be entitled for ₹ 1,25,210/- [₹ 17,580 (₹ 5860x3) + ₹ 62,630 + ₹ 12,000 + ₹ 5,000 + ₹ 8,000 + ₹ 20,000] as total compensation instead of ₹ 1,04,130/- awarded by learned claims Tribunal. Aforesaid amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount paid to appellant-claimant pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 17. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn