1 2025:CGHC:54507 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 502 of 2018 1 - Bedram Kanwar (Wrongly Mentioned In Judgement As Beduram Kanwar) S/o Anjor Singh Aged About 48 Years R/o Domnala Colony, P.S. Kharsia, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (Claimant), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Mohandas Manikpuri S/o Naindas Manikpuri Aged About 23 Years R/o Chingrajpara, P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Driver), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mohammad Nawej S/o Haji Mohammad Nafeez M/s Bukhari Tyres, Link Road Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Owner), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - National Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office 13 Minu Complex, Kosabadi Korba, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Insurer), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Ms. Shweta Bhole, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. G. V. K. Rao, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 07/11/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 22.07.2017 passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the Court of First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 District- Raigarh (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 27/2016 whereby an amount of Rs. 19,39,712.54/- has been awarded in the favour of the claimants of the deceased for the irreparable loss. 2. The brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that on 10.07.2014, the appellant, along with his friend Ashok Baghel, was travelling from Domnara to Kharsia on a motorcycle. When they reached near the Coal Washery, Dehjari, the driver of the offending vehicle, a tanker bearing registration number C.G. 04/JB/5404, came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and violently dashed against the motorcycle of the appellant. Due to the said impact, both riders were thrown off the vehicle, and the appellant sustained multiple grievous injuries all over his body. In particular, the right leg of appellant suffered a fracture of the femur bone, causing severe pain and bleeding at the spot. Immediately after the accident, the appellant was shifted to Jindal Hospital, Raigarh, where he remained under treatment for two days. Considering the seriousness of the injuries, he was referred to Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur, for further medical management. However, as his condition deteriorated and complications arose, he was again referred to Christian Medical College (C.M.C.) Hospital, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, where he underwent extensive treatment. Despite prolonged medical care, due to the critical nature of his injuries, the doctors had to amputate his right leg to save his life. The appellant remained 3 hospitalized for a long period, incurred heavy medical expenses, and ultimately suffered permanent disability, resulting in loss of earning capacity and physical hardship for the rest of his life. The appellant, being a victim of the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the tanker driver, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), seeking just and fair compensation for the injuries, permanent disability, pain, suffering, and loss of future earnings. 3. After receiving notice, the respondents appeared before the Tribunal and filed their written statements, denying the entire claim of the appellant. The ownership of the vehicle, the insurance coverage, and the factum of accident were all disputed by the respondents. The insurance company, in particular, denied liability by taking technical defences, alleging breach of policy conditions and non-possession of a valid driving licence by the driver of the offending tanker. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned Claims Tribunal framed six issues for determination and, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties, passed an award dated 22.07.2017, assessing the total compensation at Rs. 19,39,712/- in favour of the appellant. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the appellant has preferred the this appeal (C) before this Court seeking 4 enhancement of the compensation by modification of the impugned award in the interest of justice. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, by its impugned award dated 22.07.2017 in Claim Case No. 27/2016, is wholly unjust, arbitrary, and on the lower side. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate the nature of injuries, the extent of permanent disablement, and the lifelong impact on the earning capacity and quality of life of the appellant. The award does not reflect a just and fair assessment as envisaged under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, the same deserves to be suitably enhanced by this Court. The learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the documentary and oral evidence adduced by the appellant. The medical documents, discharge summaries, disability certificate, and treatment records from Jindal Hospital, Apollo Hospital, and C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore, clearly establish that the appellant sustained grievous injuries resulting in the amputation of his right leg. Despite the production of these documents, the learned Tribunal failed to assess the compensation in accordance with the severity of the disability and the consequent loss of earning capacity. The learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the right leg of appellant has been amputated, rendering him a permanently disabled person who is now completely dependent on others for his daily routine activities. The amputation of a limb 5 not only causes physical impairment but also leads to emotional trauma, social exclusion, and financial hardship for the rest of one’s life. The Tribunal, however, treated the disability mechanically, without recognizing the functional disability and the extent of loss of earning ability, which ought to have been considered at 100% in view of the nature of work the appellant was engaged in prior to the accident. The learned Tribunal has completely ignored the future medical complications and hardships that the appellant is bound to suffer for the remainder of his life. Amputation of a leg entails recurring expenses on physiotherapy, artificial limb maintenance, and other medical requirements. It also affects mobility and employability, reducing the chances of earning livelihood. The Tribunal has failed to grant any amount towards future medical expenses, cost of artificial limb replacement, or incidental expenses, thereby causing grave injustice to the appellant. The learned Tribunal further erred in not awarding any amount towards future prospects. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] has categorically held that future prospects must be added even in cases of self-employed and fixed-income persons. In the present case, the Tribunal has completely ignored this binding principle and assessed compensation only on the existing income, without any enhancement for future prospects, which is contrary to law and settled judicial precedent. The learned Tribunal has also awarded 6 very meagre amounts under the conventional heads such as pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and loss of expectation of life. The appellant has suffered immense physical, financial, and emotional loss, and the compensation awarded does not commensurate with the gravity of the injuries and disabilities suffered. In light of the above facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned award dated 22.07.2017 deserves to be modified and the compensation enhanced appropriately. 6. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 3 that the appellant is a permanent employee of SECL and continues to be employed despite the injury. Therefore, any claim for compensation towards future prospects or loss of earning capacity is not sustainable. It is further submitted that although the appellant has suffered amputation of one leg, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation considering the permanent disability and other relevant factors. The award passed by the Tribunal is just, reasonable, and in accordance with law, and does not warrant any enhancement. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of 7 the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 9. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Upon careful consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the pleadings, and the evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the appellant has suffered grievous injuries in the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending tanker bearing registration no. C.G. 04/JB/5404. The injuries resulted in amputation of the right leg, causing permanent disability, loss of mobility, and dependence on others for daily activities. The medical records, disability certificate, and treatment history from Jindal Hospital, Apollo Hospital, and C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore, clearly substantiate the severe nature of the injuries and the prolonged treatment undergone by the appellant. 11. The learned Tribunal, while passing the award dated 22.07.2017, assessed the total compensation at Rs. 19,39,712/-, which this Court finds to be on the lower side, considering the nature of injuries, the permanent disablement, and the physical and emotional suffering of the appellant. Though the Tribunal has taken into account certain aspects of loss of income and medical expenses, it has not adequately compensated the appellant for several essential heads of damages such as future medical 8 treatment, pain and suffering, attendant charges, and loss of amenities. The award, therefore, warrants modification to ensure that the compensation is just and reasonable, in line with the principles enunciated under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is evident that due to the amputation of his leg, the appellant would require continuous assistance in his day-to-day life. He would also need periodic medical attention, physiotherapy, and replacement of artificial limbs in future. Taking into consideration the nature of disability, the period of hospitalization, and the future medical needs of the appellant, this Court considers it appropriate to grant an additional sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards attendant charges. Furthermore, the appellant requires a special diet and medical supplements to maintain his health, for which an additional amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards health and diet is awarded. This Court also finds that the learned Tribunal failed to award adequate compensation towards future medical treatment, accordingly, an additional sum of Rs. 50,000/- is granted towards future treatment and medical care. 12. The Court also finds that the compensation awarded for pain and suffering by the Tribunal is inadequate considering the grave nature of injuries and permanent disability suffered by the appellant. Therefore, an additional amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is granted under the head of pain and suffering. In addition to the above, the disability of appellant has caused a severe reduction in his enjoyment of life and social participation. He would face 9 considerable inconvenience and restrictions in mobility, recreation, and social interaction for the rest of his life. Thus, an additional amount of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities of life. 13. Accordingly, the appellants/claimants would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 21,79,712.54/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards loss of Income Rs. 13,03,569.38/- 02 Towards Medical Treatment Rs. 4,97,643.16/- 03 Towards Attendant Rs. 33,800/- 04 Towards Healthy Died Rs. 25,000/- 05 Towards Future Treatment Rs. 1,50,000/- 06 Towards Pain and Suffering Rs. 1,05,000/- 07 Towards Loss of Amenities Rs. 60,000/- 08 Towards Transportation Rs. 4,700/- Total Rs. 21,79,713/- (round off) 14. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 21,79,713 (round off). After deducting Rs. 19,39,712.54/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 2,40,000/-. 15. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants/appellants shall be entitled for the enhanced amount of 10 Rs. 2,40,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. Sd/- Shayna (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE