1 2025:CGHC:51201 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 325 of 2020  Gend Ram Sahu S/o Shri Manik Ram Sahu Aged About 40 Years Permanent Address Ward No. 9, Mahamaya Chowk, Rajim, Tahsil Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1. Rupesh Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Bhuvan Lal Dewangan Aged About 26 Years Resident Of Through- Mobile, Village Beltukari, Police Station Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh, (Driver And Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Cg-04 L.G. 3108), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 2. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through- Branch Manager, Shop No. 516, Fifth Floor, National Corporate Park, Commercial Complex, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Cg-04 L.G. 3108), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with MAC No. 341 of 2020  Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Legl Officer, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 301-302, Corporate House, 169, Rnt Marg, Opposite Jhabua Tower, Indore (Madhya Pradesh)., District : Indore, Madhya Pradesh ---Appellant(s) Versus 1. Gendram Sahu S /o Shri Manikram Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Bajrang Chowk, Ward No. 9, Mahamaya Chowk, Rajim, Tahsil Rajim, District Gariaband Chhattisgarh. ..........Claimant., District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh 2. Rupesh Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Bhuwanlal Dewangan Aged About 26 Years R/o Through Mobile, Village Beltukri, P. S. Rajim, District Gariaband Chhattisgarh. ........(Driver Cum Owner), District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Claimant/Injured : Ms. Prachi Singh Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For Insurance company : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.10.16 15:45:50 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 14.10 .2025 1. Two appeals have been preferred against the award passed by the learned Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 70/2018 dated 30.10.2019, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 14,69,467/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on account of injuries sustained by Gend Ram Sahu. 2. Gend Ram Sahu has filed MAC No. 325 of 2020 for enhancement of compensation, whereas the Insurance company has challenged quantum part filing MAC No. 341 of 2020. 3. The facts of the present case are that on 11.01.2017 at about 10:30 pm, the claimant was on walk and when he reached in front of country liquor shop, he was dashed by driver of motorcycle bearing registration number CG 04 LG 3108, consequently, he sustained injuries over right leg, wrist and hands. He was taken to Government Hospital, Rajim from where he was referred to Shri Krishna Hospital, Raipur. He remained hospitalized in Hospital from 12.01.2017 to 29.01.2017, and thereafter, he was again admitted from 09.05.2017 to 25.05.2017 and surgery of his leg and wrist was done. 4. The claimant filed claim case under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 98,91,800/-. The claimant was examined by the Medical Board and 70% disability was found. Dr. G.S. Dhruw AW/2, who was member of the Medical Board has proved the contents of disability certificate. In claim application, it is also stated that the claimant was a Tailor and due to shortening of his right leg and surgery of coxal bone, he became unable to work as Tailor. The claimant submitted 3 medical bills to the tune of Rs. 5,14,267/- and bills relating to conveyance and special diet. The learned Tribunal honoured all bills. 5. Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate appearing for the claimant would submit that the learned Tribunal has not honoured bills submitted by the claimants property. She would further submit that for loss of earning and pain & suffering, the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation. She would also submit that on other conventional heads, the learned Tribunal has awarded meager amount. She would pray to enhance the compensation. 6. Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate would submit that the learned Tribunal committed an error of law while assessing the functional disability of the claiment 50%. He would further submit that there was shortening of leg, and therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered functional disability to the extent of 20-25%. He would also submit that it has not been demonstrated by the claimant that after accident, he could not work as Tailor. He would contend that claimant has exaggerated the amount of compensation and the learned Tribunal has also committed mistake by allowing the claim filed by claimant. He would pray to modify the award. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Perusal of the record would show that the claimant who was working as Tailor met with an accident on 11.01.2017, resultantly, sustained injuries, he was operated by Doctor in Raipur. There was fracture of right leg and surgery was done. The claimant approached the medical board and disability certificate was issued to the extent of 70%. The learned Tribunal assessed the disability to the extent of 50% and calculated the compensation accordingly. 9. At the time of accident, age of the claimant was 40 years and his income has been taken by the Tribunal Rs. 10,000/- per month which appears to 4 be reasonable. The learned Tribunal has further awarded loss of future prospect. The medical bills submitted by the claimant were honoured and on this head, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,14,267/-. The learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 15 looking to the age of the claimant and assessed loss of income Rs. 9,00,000/-. The learned Tribunal further awarded Rs. 10,000/- for conveyance, Rs. Rs. 13,200/- for special diet and Rs. 22000/- for attendant, but the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for pain & suffering and loss of earning during treatment. 10. The claimant was examined by the Medical Board and disability certificate was issued vide Ex. A/303, which has not been disputed by the Insurance company. The member of Medical Board has proved the contents of disability certificate and the concerned medical officer has assessed the functional disability of the claimant to the extent of 50%, and thus, the learned rightly assessed his functional disability 50% and further considered loss of earning by applying appropriate multiplier; therefore, the contention made by Mr. Sharma, cannot be accepted. Accordingly, appeal(MAC No. 341 of 2020) preferred by the Insurance company is hereby dismissed. 11. With regard to appeal preferred by the claimant for enhancement of compensation, the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for pain & suffering and loss of earnings during course of treatment. 12. Considering the facts of the present case, nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and his profession, the compensation towards loss of earning is assessed to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- as the claimant remained hospitalized for period of 33-34 days. With regard to pain & suffering as there is shortening of right leg and 70% disability was assessed by the 5 medical Board, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded on this head, thus, the claimant shall be entitled for additional sum of Rs. 65,000/- with interest at the rate of 9%.The Insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as awarded by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 13. Accordingly, the appeal(MAC No. 325 of 2020) is partly allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant