1 2025:CGHC:30748 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1417 of 2018 1 - Badal Kewat S/o Shri Chamru Kewat, Aged About 23 Years R/o Bangaon, Laxman Nagar, Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Surender Kumar Mehta S/o Late Ramchandar Mehta, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Thelwadih, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh.......(Driver Of Offending Truck Vehicle Bearing Registration C.G. 04 J.C. 5658), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Santosh Singh, S/o Mahasingh Agariya, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Thelwadih, Tahsil Katghora District Korba (Chhattisgarh)...... (Owner Of Offending Truch Vehicle Bearing Registration C.G. 04 J.C. 5658), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - National Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Meenu Complex Kosabadi Korba, Tahsil Korba, District Korba (Chhattisgarh)...(Insurer Of Offending Truck Vehicle Bearing Registration C.G. 04 J.C. 5658), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant :- Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 :- Ms. Nilu Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. F.S.Khare, Advocate For Respondent No. 3:- Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 04.07.2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 16.05.2018 passed by the learned Additional Tribunal to the Court of Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim No.32/2013 (“Badal Kewat vs. Surender Singh and others) whereby an amount of Rs. 3,01,437/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of application till its realization has been awarded by the Tribunal in the favour of the claimant/appellant herein while fastening liability upon the Insurance Company. 2. In the claim petition, the claimant (appellant) has averred that on that on 02.08.2012 at about 9:00 p.m., while returning to Bhilai Bazar in his Maruti Van and having reached near Laxman Colliery, Police Station Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.), a truck bearing registration number C.G. 04 J.C. 5658 (hereinafter called as ‘offending vehicle’), driven rashly and negligently by respondent no. 1, came from the opposite direction and collided 3 with the claimant’s vehicle, causing grievous injuries to the claimant. Due to the accident, the claimant had to undergo multiple surgeries and sustained permanent disability, leading to severe physical, mental, and financial hardship. 3. The learned Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence led by both the parties, passed an award as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Against the said award, appellant-claimant is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant respectfully submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding an unjustly low compensation of Rs. 3,01,437/- despite clear and unrebutted evidence establishing that the appellant suffered grievous injuries and permanent disability due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no. 1. The Tribunal failed to properly consider future loss of income, pain and suffering, medical expenses, and other conventional heads, and applied an incorrect multiplier, contrary to the principles laid down in Sarla Verma v. DTC , (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680 . The compensation awarded is not commensurate with the physical, mental, and economic hardship suffered by the appellant, and therefore, it is prayed that the impugned award be set aside and the compensation be suitably enhanced in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 3 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the 4 compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the claimant- appellant was employed as a driver at the time of the accident. At that time, his monthly income has been reasonably stated as Rs.6,000/-. This aspect of income should have been duly considered by the learned Claims Tribunal, which was unfortunately overlooked by the Tribunal and assessed Rs.4,940/-, which in the considered opinion of this Court is on lower side. Therefore, looking to the facts of the case and the nature of work of the claimant, this Court considers it appropriate to recompute the monthly income of the claimant at ₹6,000/- per month. 7. As far as the issue of permanent disability is concerned, there is no certificate issued by a Medical Board. Hence, based solely on the certificate issued by the doctor who examined the claimant, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the permanent disability at 16%, which does not warrant any interference. 8. As regards other heads of compensation, the bills produced by the claimant have been appropriately considered, and an amount of ₹6,000 towards assistance has also been correctly awarded. These do not require any interference. 9. However, under the head of “Mental and Physical Agony,” only ₹15,000/- has been awarded, which is inadequate. Accordingly, this amount is enhanced to ₹75,000/- under the said head. 5 10.In view of the above, the compensation is recalculated as follows: Head of Compensation Amount (in ₹) Income of the claimant Rs.6,000/- per month Rs.72,000/- (per annum) Multiplier of 17 applied Rs.72,000/- x 17 = Rs.12,24,000/- Loss of earning capacity @ 16% Rs.1,95,840/- Mental and physical agony Rs.75,000/- Attendent Rs.6,000/- Medical Bill Rs.1,25,195/- Total Compensation Rs.4,02,035/- 8. Since, the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.3,01,437/-, after deducting the same the claimant is held entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.1,00,598/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with the modification in the impugned award to the above extent. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha