1 2025:CGHC:51362 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1348 of 2019  Devcharan Sharma @ Nande S/o Late Mandhata Nande Aged About 50 Years R/o Narhareshwar Mandir, Behind Fateshah Market, Police Station Tikarapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Surendra Mehta S/o Shri Govind Mehta R/o Village Chaikala, Post Dadpur, Police Station Chouparan, District Hajaribag, Jharkhand, At Present, R/o Geedam Naka, Jagdalpur, Police Station Parpa, District Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Truck No. Cg-17, Ga-1668)., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2. Smt. Suva Bai Rathi W/o Shri Nand Lal Rathi Aged About 60 Years Kumhar Para, Nayapara, Jagdalpur, District Jangdalpur - Bastar, At Present Sukma (North Bastar) Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Truck No. Cg-17, Ga-1668)., District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Division Office No. 1, Madina Manjil, Kachhari Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Truck No. Cg-17, Ga - 1668)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : None, though served Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15.10 .2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/claimant/injured for enhancement of compensation against award passed by the learned Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur in Claim Case No. 639/2017 dated 11.12.2018, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 6,31,689/- with interest at the rate of SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.10.17 18:11:16 +0530 2 9% per annum on account of injuries sustained by the appellant. 2. Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate appearing for the appellant/claimant would submit that the appellant met with an accident on 28.02.2017 at about 3:00 pm when he was returning to Raipur from village Dhaneli on his motorcycle. He would further submit that driver of offending vehicle bearing registration No. C.G. 17 GA 1668 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle, consequently, the appellant and his wife sustained injuries on various parts of body. He would also submit that the age of the claimant was 50 years and he was earning Rs. 600- Rs. 700/- per day by working as Priest. He would contend that there was fracture of right leg and disability has been assessed by Medical Board to the extent of 60% and functional disability 50% as he became incapable to perform his work. He would further contend that the learned Tribunal has assessed notional income of the claimant Rs. 5000/-, whereas as per minimum wages matrix applicable in February, 2017, minimum wages admissible to unskilled labourer was Rs. 6206/-. He would also contend that the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for future prospect and awarded meager amount on conventional heads. He would pray to enhance the compensation. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate appearing for respondent No. 3/Insurance company would oppose. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. He would further submit that the claimant failed to prove his income by leading evidence. He would also submit that the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Dr. P.K. Gupta AW/2 has proved disability certificate Ex. P/215. According to said certificate, the claimant suffered disability to the extent of 60% and 3 his functional disability was assessed 50% as there was fracture of right leg. The profession of the claimant has not been disputed by the Insurance company. The learned Tribunal has assessed monthly income of the claimant Rs. 5,000/-, which appears to be at lower side looking to minimum wages payable to unskilled labour in the month of February, 2017, which was Rs. 6206/-. The learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for future prospect. On other conventional heads, the learned Tribunal has awarded fair compensation. 6. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, material available on record and in the light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi & others, (2017) 16 SCC 680; Sarla Verma & Ors Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. reported in 2009(6) SCC 121 and sidram Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and Anr., this Court is recomputing the compensation as below:- Sr. No Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Assessment of Income Monthly Income Rs. 5,000 x 12 = Rs.60,000/- per annum and assessed 50% disability, accordingly after calculating 50% of the annual income, assessed loss of income Rs. 30,000/- per annum Monthly Income Rs. 6,206 x12 = Rs. 74,472/- per annum and assessed 50% disability, accordingly after calculating 50% of the annual income, assessed loss of income Rs. 37,236/- per annum 2. Future Prospect NIL (25%) Rs. 9,309/- 3. Age 50 years 50 years 4 4. Multiplier 13 13 5. For Loss of Income Rs. 30,000 x 13 = = Rs. 3,90,000/- Rs. 37,236 + Rs. 9,309/- Rs. 46,545 x 13 = Rs. 6,05,085/- 6. For Medical Expenses Rs. 87,797/- Rs. 87,797/- 7. For Hospital Bill Rs. 76,792/- Rs. 76,792/- 6. For Attendant Rs. 18,500/- Rs. 18,500/- 7. For Special Diet Rs. 11,100/- Rs. 11,100/- 8. For Loss of Earning during treatment Rs. 22,500/- Rs. 22,500/- 9. Pain and Suffering Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 25,000/- TOTAL Rs. 6,31,689/- Rs. 8,46,774/- 7. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. Rs. 6,31,689/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 8,46,689/-. Hence, the appellant/claimant is held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 2,15,085/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per anuum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal, till its realization. The claimant shall not be entitled to receive any interest for the period of delay caused in filing this appeal. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 5 8. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant