1 / 13 2025:CGHC:50666 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1011 of 2019 Reserved on: 22.08.2025 Delivered on: 10.10.2025 • Sahdev Prasad Kashyap S/o Bhisham Prasad Kashyap Aged About 24 Years R/o Near Apollo Hospital Lingiyadih, Thana Sarkanda, Tahsil and District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant/ Claimant versus 1. Krishna Kumar @ Krishna Chouhan S/o Thandaram Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Bhalpahari, Thana Urga, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh. ---(Driver of the Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle No. 12 / A.A./ 9400) 2. Sukdev Prasad Kashyap S/o Bhisham Prasad Kashyap Aged About 28 Years R/o Bhalpahari, Thana Urga, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh. --- (Registered Owner of the Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C.G. 12/ A.A./9400) 3. The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Rama Tred Center 2nd Floor, In Front Of Rajeev Plaza Old Bus Stand Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---(Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C.G. 12/ A.A./9400) --- Respondents WITH MAC No. 1110 of 2019 • The New India Assurance (Insurance) Company Limited By Branch Manager, Branch Office, Rama Trade Center Second Floor, In Front of Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Through Authorised Signatory, Manager, Suit Legal Hub, New India Assurance Company Limited, Rama Trade Center Second Floor, In Front of Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant/Non-applicant No. 3 PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 13 Versus 1. Sahdev Prasad Kashyap S/o Bhisham Prasad Kashyap Aged About 24 Years R/o Near Apollo Hospital, Lingiadih, Police Station Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ....Claimant 2. Krishna Kumar @ Krishna Chouhan S/o Thandaram Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Bhalpahari, Police Station Urga, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh. ....... Driver 3. Sukhdev Prasad Kashyap S/o Bhishm Prasad Aged About 28 Years R/o Bhalpahari, Police Station Urga, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Owner --- Respondent(s) ____________________________________________________________ MAC No. 1011 of 2019 For Appellant-Claimant : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate MAC No. 1110 of 2019 For Appellant-Insu.Co. : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu C.A.V. Judgment 1. As both the appeals arise out of same accident and the common award, therefore they are heard together and decided by this common judgment. 2. Appellant-claimant in MAC No. 1011/2019 has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, and appellant-Insurance Company has filed MAC No. 1110/2019 on the ground that false case has been set up for seeking compensation, challenging the award dated 28.02.2019 passed by Learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 152/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed by applicant- claimant under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 11,16,412/- as compensation in motor accidental injury case. 3 / 13 3. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 01.07.2017 when claimant Sahdev Prasad Kasyap was returning from his work place at Korba to his native place on a motorcycle bearing number CG12-AA-9400 (hereinafter referred to as “offending motorcycle”) driven by his friend Krishna Kumar @ Krishna Chauhan, on the way due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by its driver, it jumped as one of the tyre went into the ditch on road and claimant fell down alongwith motorcycle. He suffered grievous injuries over his leg and other parts of body. Claimant was taken to hospital initially at Singh Nursing Home, Korba, thereafter he was admitted at Nayak Nursing Home, Champa, from where he discharged on 27.07.2017, and took treatment at Ladikar Hospital, Bilaspur and then from Life Care Hospital, Bilaspur where is left leg was amputated during treatment. Accident was reported to concerned police station and after investigation police submitted charge-sheet against Krishna Kumar. 4. Appellant-claimant thereafter filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of ₹ 21,50,000/-. 5. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2/ driver and owner submitted reply to the claim application, they have admitted the fact of accident and further pleaded that on the date of accident driver of offending motorcycle was having valid and effective driving licence to drive the motorcycle. Vehicle was insured with non-applicant No. 3 for a period from 10.01.2017 to 09.01.2018, as such liability to pay compensation, if any, would be of non-applicant No. 3. 6. Non-applicant No. 3-Insurance Company submitted reply and pleaded therein that on the date of accident non-applicant No. 1 was not having valid and effective driving licence. Accident was not reported by driver or owner of offending motorcycle. Offending motorcycle was being driven in breach of policy conditions and it was also pleaded that there was no accident by the motorcycle. The report of accident was lodged with delay, only on 05.12.2017 4 / 13 involving offending motorcycle insured by non-applicant No. 3 as an afterthought. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, held that claimant suffered motor accidental injuries while travelling on offending motorcycle driven by non-applicant No. 1. He suffered grievous injuries over his person resulting in amputation of his right leg above knee, allowed the application in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 11,16,412/-. 8. As the Insurance Company has filed an appeal bearing MAC No. 1110 of 2019 on the ground that the offending motorcycle has been involved falsely and claimant is not entitled for any amount of compensation, I find it appropriate to deal with the grounds as raised by the Insurance Company in its appeal, first. 9. Learned counsel for appellant-insurance company would submit that the accident is dated 01.07.2017, it was reported with prolonged delay on 05.12.2017 which makes the accident as projected by claimant suspicious. It is also submitted that, had it been grievous injuries sustained by claimant, he would not have been discharged from the hospital immediately. Insurance Company also doubted document of Dr. Shrish Kumar Mishra, because he has not gone through the medico legal certificate and stated that claimant was admitted on 29.07.2017 and discharged on 06.08.2017. He also had not given specific evidence that the injured suffered motor accidental injuries. It is also argued that even after discharged from hospital on 06.08.2017, report was not lodged within the reasonable period of time but lodged only on 05.12.2017. There is delay of about 04 months in lodging F.I.R. from the date of discharge from hospital. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anil and others vs. New India 5 / 13 Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2018 (1) T.A.C. 355 (S.C.) and Usha Devi and others vs. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2020 (1) T.A.C. 41 (SC). 10. Learned counsel for respondent-claimant would submit that claimant after receiving injuries on his person took treatment as an in-patient only for some time and document in this regard were also filed before the Claims Tribunal which were considered. He also contended that injuries suffered by claimant was not only grievous but appellant suffered amputation of his left leg. Injury after amputation takes time for its recovery. Only because there is some delay in lodging F.I.R., entire case of claimant cannot be said to be false. He contended that claimant has also filed an appeal seeking enhancement of amount of compensation on the ground that appropriate compensation has not been awarded by assessing correct income in the facts of the case where the claimant/ appellant suffered amputation of his left leg above knee. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused record of claim case. 12. So far as grounds raised by appellant-Insurance Company in its appeal are concerned, perusal of record of claim case would show that date of accident as pleaded in the claim application is 01.07.2017. In the claim application, it is also pleaded that injured on the date of accident was travelling along with his friend on offending motorcycle and returning to his house from his work place. Ext. A-6 is a document of treatment from Singh Nursing Home, Korba, it mentions severe fracture of leg. Prescription of Nayak Nursing Home, Champa is also enclosed in record as part of Ext. A-6, it mentions ‘fall 22 days back; treatment taken at Surjeet Singh hospital; comminuted fracture of the tibial condyle left; infection on skin and sinus discharge. In discharge summary of hospital, it is mentioned as ‘ 22 days old comminuted fracture, proximal tibia fibula left with discharging sinus and compromised skin with loss of foot movement. This summary is dated 27.07.2017. Procedure of 6 / 13 treatment adopted was Debridement of wound with Excision of all dead tissue and muscle. Prescription of Ladikar Hospital is also available on record which is dated 27.07.2017, it mentions that patient took treatment elsewhere and came today with gross infection and foul smelling puss discharge with no soft tissues covering in upper 1/3rd of leg with gangrene of soft tissue. No movement in toes and ankle. It also mentions that patient was explained about the condition of injuries and may need amputation. It further records that patient and relatives not willing his admission; discharged against medical advice. Admission record of Life Care Hospital, Bilaspur is also available on record which shows the date of admission on 29.07.2017 at about 10:00 pm and discharged on 06.08.2017 and the date of operation is mentioned as 01.08.2017. Looking to the condition of injury suffered by him on his left tibia fibula, he was advised for amputation and accordingly his leg was amputated. Consent letter of patient and the attendant is also available which is dated 01.08.2017 for operation and amputation of left leg. 13. Now in the aforementioned facts of the case, it is to be considered whether delay in lodging in F.I.R. would be fatal for making a claim seeking compensation against severe injury like amputation suffered by claimant. It is not expected from the injured person/ claimant who suffered grievous injury over his person to rush to police station immediately after accident for lodging a report when he suffered injuries of like nature ie., comminuted fracture over left knee resulting in loss of foot movement. From the medical documents available on record, it is appearing that since the date of accident, claimant took continuous treatment till 06.08.2017 as the date of discharge after getting his left leg amputated above knee. Even after discharge, there may be every possibility of claimant suffering with pain on the amputated part of leg and bandages etc. was not removed as it takes further time for full recovery of amputated injury. One more thing that is to be taken into consideration is that the claimant fell down from the motorcycle due to rash 7 / 13 and negligent driving by his friend Krishna Chauhan and therefore there may be possibility that after discharge from the hospital and feeling little good claimant might have given multiple thought, whether report is to be lodged against his friend or not. 14. In the aforementioned facts of the case, delay of few months in lodging F.I.R., in the opinion of this Court, cannot be said to be inordinate delay and fatal to the claim. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ravi vs. Badrinarayan and others reported in (2011) 4 SCC 693 while considering the issue with regard to delay in lodging F.I.R. after about three months from the date of accident has observed thus: “17. It is well settled that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the police station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the police station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. 18. x x x x 19. Lodging of FIR certainly proves the factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be a variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgement of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquillity of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR 8 / 13 assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons.” 15. The case laws are to be applied taking into consideration facts of each case. Facts which are to be discussed by courts while arriving at a conclusion may be different in each of it and therefore it cannot be applied as a straight jacket formula. 16. Decision in the case of Anil and others (supra) is on different facts, in that case Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of the fact that High Court has taken into consideration that from the facts it is not known whether deceased died in hospital at Gurgaon or he died at GH Hospital and further that there was no post-mortem report as not post-mortem was conducted. Further, there is discrepancy in evidence of driver who took the injured, as at one point of time he stated that deceased was brought dead and at other place he stated that deceased was referred to another hospital for further treatment. 17. In the case of Usha Devi and others (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the fidning recorded by the High Court suspecting about coming to the knowledge about the jeep bearing number RJ01-C-0214 stated to be involved in accident instead of jeep bearing number RJ25-C-1052 caused accident and further considered that material witness Madan Mohan was not examined before the Tribunal who lodged report. The said facts of the case in Usha Devi and others (supra) is on different facts, hence, both the cases as relied upon by the learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company is not applicable to the facts of present case. 18. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Dubey and others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3779 while relying upon almost identical issue in Bimla Devi vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 13 SCC 530 has observed thus: “20. Firstly, it is well settled that in claim cases, in case the accident is disputed or the 9 / 13 involvement of the vehicle concerned is put in issue, the claimant is only expected to prove the same on a preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt. [See Sajeena Ikhbal v. Mini Babu George, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2883]. We also deem it appropriate to extract the following paragraphs from the judgment of this Court in Bimla Devi v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 13 SCC 530. Repelling similar contentions raised challenging the accident and the involvement of the vehicle in question, this Court held as follows: “14. Some discrepancies in the evidence of the claimant's witnesses might have occurred but the core question before the Tribunal and consequently before the High Court was as to whether the bus in question was involved in the accident or not. For the purpose of determining the said issue, the Court was required to apply the principle underlying the burden of proof in terms of the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as to whether a dead body wrapped in a blanket had been found at the spot at such an early hour, which was required to be proved by Respondents 2 and 3. 15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties. 16. The judgment of the High Court to a great extent is based on conjectures and surmises. While holding that the police might have implicated the respondents, no reason has been assigned in support thereof. No material brought on record has been referred to for the said purpose.” 10 / 13 19. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sajeena Ikhbal and others vs. Mini Banu George and others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2883 has observed thus: “16. … There is abundance of evidence pointing to the fact that the car was involved in the accident and the courts below have not considered the evidence in true perspective and have misguided themselves to record perverse finding regarding non-involvement of the car in the accident. In claim cases, arising out of motor accident, the court has to apply the principles of preponderance of probability and cannot apply the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt.” 20. In the case at hand, the injured suffered motor accidental injuries due to falling from motorcycle driven by his friend, resulting in amputation of one of his leg. Cases under the Act of 1988 are to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and not on the evidence of beyond reasonable doubt. The facts and evidence available on record brought by the claimants to prove accident, in the opinion of this Court, appears to be probable. 21. For the foregoing reasons, discussion and the above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, I do not find any good ground to accept submission made by learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company in the appeal. Appeal being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly. 22. So far as MAC No. 1011 of 2019 filed by appellant-claimant seeking enhancement of amount of compensation is concerned, in the claim application claimant has mentioned his occupation as Mason and earning ₹ 9,000 per month. Claims Tribunal has assessed income of appellant- claimant as ₹ 4,500 per month treating him to be an unskilled labourer. True it is that claimant could not be able to prove his occupation as Mason and his income as ₹ 9,000 per month by producing cogent and reliable piece of evidence and therefore, Claims Tribunal has correctly taken recourse to 11 / 13 assess income of claimant notionally. However, Claims Tribunal has not taken into consideration wage rate prevailing on the date of accident at the working place of claimant. From the pleadings made in the claim application and the evidence, it appears that claimant was working at Korba. Even if he is not working as mason, then also treating him to be unskilled labourer, his income is to be assessed considering the wage rate prevailing at Korba. There is no suggestive piece of evidence about the wage rate/ structure prevailing at Korba of an unskilled labourer and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, it will be appropriate to assess wages of claimant considering minimum wages fixed by the competent authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 notified for the period from 01.04.2017 to 30.09.2017, according to which for B-zone area minimum wages fixed for unskilled labourer was ₹ 7800 per month. Accordingly, I find it appropriate to determine income of claimant as ₹ 7,800 per month. 23. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sidram vs. The Divisional Manager, United Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439 has held that in cases of permanent disability also, there shall be addition of 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects where the claimant was less than 40 years of age as observed in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 for the purpose of computing the amount of compensation. In the case at hand, appellant-claimant was 24 years of age on the date of accident and therefore there shall be addition of 40% in the assessed income to compute the total income of claimant. Upon adding 40% of the assessed income, monthly income of claimant would be ₹ 10,920 (₹ 7800 + 40% of ₹ 7800). 24. There is no challenge to loss of income as assessed by the Claims Tribunal either by the Insurance company or by appellant-claimant and therefore loss of income of 70% as assessed by the Claims Tribunal is affirmed and 12 / 13 accordingly compensation is to be computed treating that appellant-claimant suffered 70% loss of income. 25. Claims Tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of 18 which is to the tune of decision of Sarla Verma & others v. Delhi Transport Corp. & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. Claims Tribunal has further awarded ₹ 78,851.59 (rounded off to ₹ 78,852) towards medical expenses. Learned counsel for appellant-claimant could not able to point out that the Claims Tribunal in any manner escaped consideration of any of the documentary evidence while computing compensation towards medical expenses and therefore award of medical expenses is affirmed. 26. The award of compensation under the head of conveyance and special diet of ₹ 25,000, mental pain and agony of ₹ 50,000, in the opinion of this Court, have been correctly awarded. Claims Tribunal fell into error in awarding ₹ 10,000 towards attendant overlooking the fact that claimant took treatment of sever injury suffered by him on his left leg leading to amputation of leg above knee, for about more than a month as in-patient. Looking to the nature of treatment and amputation of leg, he might have taken assistance of some other person for discharging his day to day activities even after discharge from hospital, and therefore, I find it appropriate to award compensation under the head of attendant as ₹ 15,000. It is ordered accordingly. Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards loss of amenities and joy in life. Claimants was aged about 24 years on the date of accident, he has to live his rest of the life with the amputated leg and he could not be able to enjoy his future life like an ordinary person and therefore I find it appropriate to award ₹ 50,000 towards loss of amenities in life. 27. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellant-claimant requires recomputation, which is as under. 13 / 13 Particulars Compensation A. Annual income/ dependency after addition of 40% towards loss of future prospects = ₹ 1,31,040/- (₹10,920x12) B. Multiplier of 18 (₹ 1,31,040 x 18 = ₹ 23,58,720) C. 70% loss of earning due to permanent disability (₹ 23,58,720 x 70% = ₹ 16,51,104) ₹ 16,51,104/- • Medical Expenses (maintained) ₹ 78,852/- • Pain and sufferings (maintained) ₹ 50,000/- • Conveyance expenses and special diet (maintained) ₹ 25,000/- • Loss of amenities in life ₹ 50,000/ • Attender cost (enhanced) ₹ 15,000/- Total ₹ 18,69,956/- 28. Now the appellant-claimant shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 18,69,956 instead of ₹ 11,16,411.59 as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. • Any amount paid to the appellant-claimant pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. • Rest of the conditions of the impugned award as imposed by the Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. 29. Consequently, appeal filed by Insurance Company in MAC No. 1110/2019 is dismissed being sans merit and the appeal, MAC No. 1011/2019, filed by claimant is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn