1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 470 of 2019 Santosh Kumar Sarthi S/o Late Somaru Ram Sarthi Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Girwarganj, Police Station, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Mohd. Bilal S/o Rasul Khan Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Mahora, Police Station Patna, District Korea Chhattisgarh.(Driver Of Vehicle Alto Car Bearingno. M.P. 18 - C- 3714), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Mohd. Kalam Khan S/o Kalimuiddin Aged About 45 Years (Owner Vehicle) R/o Village Kunjnagar, Police Station Jainagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh(Owner Of Vehicle Alto Car Bearingno. M.P. 18 - C- 3714), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - United India Insurance Company Limited Branch Manager, Near Hotel Kukkum, Bramha Road, Ambikapur District Road, Ambikapur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.(Insurer Of Vehicle Alto Car Bearingno. M.P. 18 - C- 3714), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate along with Mr. Vikash Patel, Advocate 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 13/10/2025 1. The claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against award dated 14.11.2018, passed by the learned IIIrd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Surajpur in Claim Case No. 90/2017, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed award to the tune of Rs. 1,78,352/- with interest @ 9 % per annum in favour of the claimant on account of injuries sustained by him. 2. Mr. Khare, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the claimant/appellant was a SECL employee and he was dashed by respondent No.1/ Md. Bilal driver of the offending vehicle (Alto Car) bearing registration No. MP-18-C-3714. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and his right hand and right leg got fractured. He would contend that the claimant could not work for a period of 1 year 1 month and 16 days, whereas, medical leave was sanctioned by the department for 43 days only and same is evident from Ex.P/22. He would argue that on other heads, the learned Tribunal has awarded meager amount. 3. Mr. Tulsyan, learned counsel for respondent No.3 would submit that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. The 3 claimant failed to lead evidence before the learned Tribunal to prove the fact that he could not work for 1 year, 1 month and 16 days. He would further submit that the claimant could not adduce documents before the learned Tribunal to establish that he could not work for long one year as he was medically not fit and this fact has been considered by the learned Tribunal. He would further submit that this appeal may be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Admittedly, the claimant was a SECL employee and was earning Rs.50,117.49 per month. Ex. P/22 would show that the claimant could not work for a period of 1 year 1 month and 16 days and an application was moved by him before his employer to sanction medical leave. Said application was considered by employer and absence of 43 days was adjusted against medical leave vide Ex.P/22; thus, the appellant did not get salary or wages for long 317 days. The Insurance Company could not lead evidence to rebut that document. 6. Admittedly, the appellant sustained bony injuries in the said accident and there was fracture of right leg and right hand, therefore, the claimant could not discharge his duties for a period of more than one year. 7. The employer has adjusted absence of claimant for 43 days only. The appellant/claimant failed to place on record applications moved before the employer for grant of medical leave. 4 8. Taking into consideration the fact that the claimant/appellant could not adduce documentary evidence to establish the fact that his absence was result of accident and also failed to submit applications for grant of leave, therefore, the appellant would not be entitled to claim salary for period of 1 year, but at the same time, sight cannot be lost to the effect that due to injuries sustained by the claimant, he could not work for the said period, though documents have not been placed. Further, the learned Tribunal has awarded a meager amount on conventional heads, i.e. Rs. 1,500 towards attendant charges, Rs. 1,500 towards special diet, Rs. 5,000 towards transportation expenses and Rs. 20,000 towards pain and suffering. Therefore, the Insurance Company is directed to pay an additional sum of Rs. 2,00,000 (Rupees Two Lakhs only) to the claimant, in addition to the award already granted by the learned Tribunal. 9. The said amount shall not carry interest, if same is paid within a period of 60 days. 10. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim