1 2025:CGHC:19213 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 593 of 2020 1 - Chandrashekhar Sahu S/o Shri Hulasram Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Piproud, Thana- Gobra Navapara, Tahsil- Abhanpur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant Versus 1 - Digeshwar Nishad S/o Shri Bhukhuram Nishad Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Pidhi, Thana- Tumgaon, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Vehicle Bus No. Cg-04-Dn-6444) 2 - Rajendra Chandrakar S/o Shri Manharan Lal Chandrakar R/o House No. 71 Ward No. 23 Imalibhantha Mahasamund, Thana, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Vehicle Bus No. Cg-04-Dn-6444). 3 - Divisional Manager The New India Insurance Company Limited, Second Floor, Jeewan Bima Nigam Mandal Office Premises, Jeewan Bima Marg Pandari Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Vehicle Bus No. Cg-04-Dn- 6444) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : None though served For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Qumrul Aziz, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 29/04/2025 1. There is no representation on behalf of the Respondents No. 1 & 2 though served. SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 2. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2020 which is an application for condonation of delay of 82 days in filing of the appeal. 3. The submissions of the counsel for the appellant and the pleadings made in the application is opposed by the counsel for the Respondent No. 3. 4. On due consideration of the submission of counsel for the respective parties as also, the pleadings made in the application. I.A. No. 01/2020 is allowed. Delay of 82 days in filing of the appeal is condoned. 5. Appeal is admitted for hearing. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has fastened the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Non-Appellants No. 1 to 3. Respondent No. 3 being the insurer is having the first liability to satisfy the amount of compensation. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 do not dispute the submission made by the counsel for the appellant with respect to the liability upon the Insurance Company to satisfy the amount of compensation. 8. In view of the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, notice sent to the Respondents No. 1 & 2 is dispensed with. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is pressing the appeal only on the ground of not awarding sufficient amount under the head of loss of income for 03 months, conveyance expenses, attendant, pains and suffering as assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal be heard at the admission stage. 10. With the consent of parties, appeal is heard finally at the admission stage. 3 11.This appeal is filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 19.09.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in Claim Case No. H-18/2019. 12.Facts of the case in brief are that, on 04.10.2018, when the appellant was going towards Village Bhoring on his motorcycle bearing registration no. CG 04 LT 0256 and reached near Acholi, at that time, Mini Bus bearing Registration No. CG 04 DN 6444 which was coming from Tumgaon towards Gadhsiwani and was being driven by the Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the appellant and thereafter, the appellant sustained grievous injuries over his head and eye and other parts. Subsequent to the said accident, an FIR was lodged against the Respondent No. 1 bearing Crime No. 227/2019 at P.S. Tumgaon, District – Mahasamund for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 13.Learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant suffered injuries over his head and eye and he remain admitted in the hospital for about 25 days for treatment of the head injury and injury suffered on his eye. It is contention of the appellant that even after taking the treatment, the eye of the appellant could not be cured. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards the injury. He next contended that though learned Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that the appellant could not be able to work for a period of 03 months, however, the loss of income is assessed at the rate of Rs. 5,000 p.m. overlooking the nature of occupation and the income as pleaded in the 4 application. He also contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded the proper amount of compensation under the head of conveyance, attendant, special diet and pains and suffering in the facts of the cae. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 would oppose the submission made by the counsel for the appellant and submits that the appellant claimant failed to produce any document to show that he suffered grievous injuries in the accident and therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciating the evidence available on record has awarded just and proper amount of compensation on the other heads and hence, it does not call for any interference. He however, submits that the appellant failed to prove his occupation and the income and therefore, learned Claims Tribunal assessing the income of the appellant on notional basis has calculated the amount of compensation towards loss of income during the laid down period which also, does not call for any interference. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the appeal and the copy of the award passed. 16. The injuries suffered in the accident is not in dispute. Perusal of the award would show that the learned Claims Tribunal based on the documentary and oral evidence available on record has recorded a finding that the appellant remained admitted from 04.10.2018 till 29.10.2018 at V. Care Hospital and Shri Ganesh Vinayak Eye Hospital. Learned Claims Tribunal considering the nature of injury and the or and documentary evidence of the appellant had concluded that the appellant could not be able to do his work for earning livelihood for a 5 period of 03 months. This finding of the learned Claims Tribunal is not challenged by the Respondent No. 3. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant has also not disputed the finding of the learned Claims Tribunal regarding the laid down period of the appellant. The only ground raised is the income assessed for ascertaining the loss of income for the laid down period is not proper. Perusal of the impugned award would show that the learned Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to prove the nature of occupation and the income by placing cogent and admissible piece of evidence. Even if, the appellant could not be able to prove the nature of occupation as pleaded in the claim application and the income, then also, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the appellant treating the appellant to be a Labourer, considering the wage structure prevailing within the city/district, price index, cost of living and could have also taken the help of the minimum wages as fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Act, 1948) of the year 2018 from 01.10.2018 to 31.03.2019. 18. The appellant is resident of Raipur District. Even if, he is not residing in the Raipur City, however, considering the distance between Raipur City and Gobra-Nawapara and Raipur being the industrial city, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the appellant treating him to be an ‘Unskilled Labourer’ to the tune of Rs. 7800/- p.m. Accordingly, the appellant would be entitled for the compensation towards loss of income during the laid down period as Rs. 23,400/- (7800 X 3). 19. So far as the further submission made by the counsel for appellant with respect to non-awarding of proper compensation under the head of 6 conveyance expenses is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant could not point out from the award or the record that he has submitted the bills of making payment for the private conveyance from Gobra- Nawapara to Hospital at Raipur. In absence of the evidence, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award of Rs. 5,000/- towards the conveyance expenses. Accordingly, the award of Rs. 5,000/- for compensation towards the conveyance expenses is affirmed. 20. So far as the award of the attendant is concerned, learned Claims Tribunal has taken note of the fact that the appellant remained admitted for 25 days. Even after discharge from hospital, the appellant might have taken assistance from other person. The income as assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal as Rs. 5,000/- p.m. of the appellant has been interferred by this Court in preceding paragraph considering the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority under the Act, 1948 and therefore, under the facts of the case, the amount which is to be extended towards the attendant would not be less than Rs. 7,800/- p.m. Considering the entirety of the facts of the case, the period of treatment and the nature of injury suffered, I find it appropriate to award Rs. 10,000/- towards the attendant instead of Rs. 5,000/-. 21. Perusal of the contents of the award would show that the appellant has expended Rs. 1,24,500/- for his treatment and further, the amount towards the purchase of medicine also, all the documents have been placed before the learned Claims Tribunal which is recorded in para 22 & 23 of the impugned award. Learned Claims Tribunal after considering the documentary evidence has arrived at the conclusion that the appellant has expended a total sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- for his treatment. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the nature of injury as 7 stated by the appellant before the Learned Claims Tribunal that he suffered fracture injury over his head and injury over his eye, learned Claims Tribunal has committed an error in awarding only Rs. 5,000/- towards the pains and sufferings. Considering the entirety of the facts of the case, nature of injury suffered, the amount expended for treatment, I find it appropriate to award Rs. 20,000/- towards pains and sufferings. It is ordered accordingly. Considering the nature of injury, the amount of Rs. 5,000/- awarded towards special diet in also enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- 22. For the foregoing discussions, now the appellant will be entitled for a total sum of Rs. 2,48,400/- (1,80,000 + 23,400 + 5000 + 10,000 + 20,000 + 10,000). This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 23. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above. 24. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. 25. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- --------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey