1 2025:CGHC:40195 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 454 of 2024 Abhijeet Singh Chandel S/o Rajbahadur Singh Chandel Aged About 45 Years R/o Village And Post - Risda, Tahsil - Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.),... (Applicant) --- Appellant versus 1 - Rameshwar Kewat S/o Makhanlal Kewat Aged About 37 Years R/o Village - Banahil Police Station - Mulmula, District - Janjgir Champa (C.G.), (Driver And Owner Of The Vehicle Pick-Up No. C.G.-11-A.D.- 0205),. 2 - Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office - Gurukripa Tower 2nd Floor, Vyapar Vihar Road, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.),(Insurer Of The Vehicle Pick-Up No. C.G.-11-A.D.- 0205) --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Prerna Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 11/08/2025 1. Claimant/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (for short BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.29 10:37:03 +0530 2 ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 25.03.2023 passed in Claim Case No. 896/2018 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.95,337/- as compensation in an injury case. 2. The fact that the accident was caused by the offending vehicle, which was insured by Non-Applicant No. 2, resulting into the injuries suffered by appellant/claimant, due to the rash and negligent driving of Non- Applicant No. 1, is not in dispute. Liability fastened is also undisputed. Therefore, this Court is not entering into the factual aspects of the case and is only considering the submission made by learned counsel for appellant seeking enhancement of amount of compensation. 3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation in the facts of the case. It is contended that learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation under the head of loss of income only for 12 days, of Rs.3,240/-, which is much less. From the documents available in record more particularly Ex.P-9, it is appearing that, he took treatment from Khanduja Orthocare & Accident Hospital, Bilaspur for which he paid Rs.53,500/- apart from other bills. Claims Tribunal has awarded the entire bills as placed on record amounting to Rs.62,097/- including (Rs.53,500/- as mentioned in Ex.P-9). In the facts of the case, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have awarded loss of income more than what is awarded. It is contended that learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head of grievous injuries if not the permanent disability. He prays for enhancement of amount of compensation suitably. 3 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal in categorical terms has recorded that claimant has not submitted discharge summary or any medical prescription showing nature of injuries suffered by him, therefore, learned Claims Tribunal justified in considering the period of treatment as inpatient for 12 days and accordingly has awarded compensation towards loss of income during period of treatment. She submits that claimant has not suffered any permanent disability and compensation is awarded on almost all the heads for which claimant is entitled. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of claim case. 6. Perusal of pleadings made in the claim application would show that claimant had specifically pleaded that in the motor accident, he suffered fracture of his right leg apart from the injuries in other parts of body. Claimant has not placed on record MLC of government hospital nor discharge summary or the prescription of treatment taken by him from Khanduja Orthocare & Accident Hospital, Bilaspur, however, only submitted Ex.P-9 showing the medial expenses incurred by claimant of Rs.53,500/- which includes the hospital stay, O.T. charges, operation fee etc. From the contents of document Ex.P-9, it is appearing that due to fracture injuries suffered by him on his right leg, he underwent surgery for reunion of fracture on his right leg. Learned Claims Tribunal while computing the amount of compensation has taken note of the Ex.P-9, awarded the amount of expenses incurred by claimant as mentioned in Ex.P-9 and further considering that treatment 4 as inpatient for 12 days, however, fell into error in not awarding sufficient compensation towards loss of income. Claims Tribunal considering the date of accident and minimum wages fixed by competent authority under Minimum Wages Act has assessed income of claimant as Rs.8,100/- per month considering the claimant to be unskilled labourer. 7. In the aforementioned facts of the case, looking to the nature of injuries suffered by claimant and treatment taken by him, undergoing surgery of his right leg, in the opinion of this Court, appellant may not be able to work for a period of two months, accordingly compensation for loss of income would Rs.8,100 x 2 = Rs.16,200/-. It is ordered accordingly. Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards grievous injuries suffered by him. Undisputedly, claimant suffered fracture injury over his right leg for which he has underwent surgery, therefore, I find it appropriate to award compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards grievous injuries considering that injuries may affect life of the appellant for long time. 8. Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards attendant though considered that appellant underwent treatment for about 12 days, and even after discharge from hospital, claimant might have required help of other person for couple of days, therefore, I find it appropriate to award the compensation towards intendant for a period of one month of Rs.8,100/- and looking to the nature of injuries I find it appropriate to award Rs.3,000/- towards conveyance expenses. It is ordered accordingly. The compensation awarded under other heads in 5 the opinion of this Court is just and proper, which does not call for any interference. 9. On the basis of above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :- S.N. Head Amount. (Rs.) 1. Loss of income for two months (Rs.8,100 x 2) : 16,200.00 2. For medical expenses : 62,097.00 3. For special diet : 10,000.00 4. For pain and suffering : 20,000.00 5. For grievous injuries : 10,000.00 6. For attendant : 8,100.00 7. For conveyance : 3,000.00 Total Compensation : 1,29,397.00 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellant shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,29,397.00. Any amount paid to the appellant as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 11. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that as there was delay of 248 days, the appellant would not be entitled for the interest for delayed period as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case 6 of Lakkamma Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2021) 20 SCC 797. 12. On due consideration on the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.2, as also the decision in case of Lakkamma (supra), it is directed that appellant will not be entitled for the interest on the additional amount of compensation for the delayed period of 248 days. 13. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram