1 2025:CGHC:55476 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 473 of 2021 Feruram Sahu S/o Late Dukalharam Sahu, Aged About 51 Years Caste Sahu, R/o. Village Dhaba, Post Bhedsar, Police Station Bori, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Claimant). ...Appellant versus 1 - Indrasan @ Indrasen Yadav S/o Gajaruram Yadav, Aged About 57 Years Caste Yadav, R/o. Kailash Nagar, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Truck No. C G-07, C A-3292), 2 - Ramesh Sharma S/o Parasram Sharma, R/o House No.147, Ward No.11, Shankar Nagar, Gali No.02, Near Maharan Pratap Bhawan Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Truck No. C G-07, C A-3292), 3 - Branch Manager And Office, The New India Insurance Company Limited, Jamul, Micro Office (603008), Nandani Road, Laxmi Para, Beside The S.B.I. A.T.M., Jamul, District Durg (C.G.), Through - Divisional Manager And Office, The New India Insurance Company Limited, Chouhan Estate, Upper Side Of S.B.I. Bank, Beside Chandra Mourya Talkies, G.E. Road, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Truck No. C G-07, C A-3292), ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No.3 For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : : Ms. Pooja Yadav, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate None Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 13/11/2025 1. The claimant/appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against award passed by the learned VI th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No. 201/2018, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,40,119/- with interest @ 6 % per annum on account of injury sustained by the Claimant. 2. Ms. Seema Verma, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the claimant was a salesman at Ashok Fuels, Sector – 6, Bhilai at the relevant time. He was dashed by a Truck bearing Registration No. CG-07- CA-3292 on 27.11.2017, resultantly, he sustained grievous injuries over his legs. She would submit that the claimant was admitted twice in Sai Hospital Kelabadi and his legs were operated. She would contend that the learned Tribunal assessed the notional income of the injured @ Rs. 9,000/- per month which is at lower side. She would contend that the document Ex. P/33 to 35 which are salary slips and bank statements would reveal that claimant was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. She would submit that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered that figure for computation of the compensation. She would further submit 3 that on other conventional heads, the learned Tribunal has awarded meager amount. 3. Ms. Verma would submit that the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards special diet, Rs. 5,000/- towards conveyance, Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and suffering, and Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of amenities. It is further argued that on account of injuries sustained by the claimant on both legs and eyes, the claimant has suffered permanent disability, which has been assessed at 18% as per the disability certificate (Ex. P/37). 4. It is argued that the claimant remained hospitalized for period of 21 days and he was operated twice; thus, learned Tribunal ought to have awarded higher amount on the head of pain and suffering. She would pray to enhance amount accordingly. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Pooja Yadav appearing for Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellant and submit that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation; thus the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 4 7. Ex. P/33 to 35 submitted by the claimant before the learned Tribunal would reveal that the claimant was working as salesman in the petrol pump and earning Rs.12,000/- and more. The claimants has placed on record bank statement to establish this fact. Learned Tribunal has considered the income of the injured Rs.9,000/- per month. 8. As there was cogent documentary evidence with regard to the income of the injured, the learned Tribunal should have taken that figure into consideration while assessing compensation. 9. The learned Tribunal awarded meagre amount under the heads of pain and suffering, special diet, conveyance, attendant charges and loss of income during treatment, therefore, compensation requires recomputation. 10.Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, the compensation is revisited as under:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income 10,350 x 12 = 1,24,200/- Rs.12,000+15%=13, 800 x 12 = 1,65,600/- 2. Loss of income 10,350 x 12 x 18/100 x 11 = 2,45,916 13,800 x12x18/100x11 = 3,27,888/- 3. Pain & suffering 20,000 40,000 4. Loss of amenities 20,000 20,000 5. Special diet 5,000 10,000 6. Conveyance 5,000 10,000 5 7. Attendant Rs.4,200 15,000 8. Loss of Income during Treatment Rs. 36,000 36,000 10. Medical Bills 1,04,003 1,04,003 Total Rs. 4,40,119/- 5,62,891/- Final Compensation Rs.5,62,891 - 4,40,119 Rs.1,22,772/- 11. In view of the above calculation, the claimants shall be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.1,22,772/-. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of Rs. 1,22,772/-, with interest @ 6% per annum to the appellant/claimant within a period of 60 days. The remaining terms and conditions of the award shall remain intact. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim