1 2025:CGHC:15095 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 253 of 2020 1 - Laikhan Baghel S/o Samu Ram Baghel Aged About 24 Years R/o Tengarugudapara, Village Chamiya, Post Sivni, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Mohan Ravi Kumbakare W/o Ravi Kumbakare Aged About 61 Years Occupation Driver Of D.V. Project Limited, First Floor, Vikas Complex, Vikas Mahto P.H. Road, Korba, Post Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Proprietor- D.V. Project Limited First Floor, Vikas Complex, Vikas Mahto P.H. Road, Korba, Post Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Hostel Laxman Avenue, Murti Line, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 28/03/2025 1. This is an admitted appeal. 2. There is no representation on behalf of Respondent No.1 & 2 though served. SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 3. This appeal is filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 27.07.2019 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Jagdalpur, District – Bastar (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 222/2018 wherein, the learned Claims Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 5,21,678/- as compensation in a permanent disability. 4. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 29.09.2017 at about 04:00 A.M., the appellant/claimant was going towards his office at Nagarnaar on his motorcycle and when he reached near Village – Balenga, the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. CG 12 AM 7079 which was driven by the Respondent No. 1 dashed the appellant/claimant. In the said accident, the appellant/claimant sustained grievous injuries. The incident was reported to the concerned police station and a case was registered against the Respondent No. 1. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to motor accidental injuries, the appellant suffered permanent disability, loss of earning capacity to the extent of 35% as also, the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Respondent No. 3/Insurance company is not in dispute. He contended that in this appeal, the appellant is only seeking the enhancement of of compensation on the ground that the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on lower side as Rs. 6,000/- p.m. treating the appellant as Labourer, not awarded the compensation towards future prospects, when the Claims Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that the appellant suffered 35% loss of earning capacity due to the motor accidental injury suffered by him and amount of compensation awarded on other heads also to be on the lower side. 3 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 vehemently opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal considering the nature of injuries as also the percentage of loss of earning capacity has awarded just and proper amount of compensation and have awarded compensation on all heads for which, the appellant is entitled. He also submits that the interest awarded on the compensation amount is on the higher side, hence, the impugned awarded does not call for any interference. 7. In the aforementioned facts of the case, this Court considers it appropriate to dispose of this appeal at the admission stage. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and and perused the record of the claim case as also, the appeal. 9. So far as the submission made by counsel for the appellant with respect to the income of the appellant assessed on the date of accident is concerned, the appellants have pleaded that he was working as a security guard and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. However, in absence of any admissible piece of evidence, learned Claims Tribunal has considered the income of the appellant as Rs. 6,000/- per month. 10.For assessing the income of the deceased or the appellant/claimant on notional basis, learned Claims Tribunal is required to consider the factors like the age of the deceased/claimants, place of residence, price index and other like factors. The learned Claims Tribunal or the Courts considering the application/appeal for the award of compensation can also take into consideration the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 4 11. True it is that when the claimant/injured pleads his occupation and the income, it is the liability upon the claimant/injured to prove the same in accordance with law by producing admissible and clinching evidence before the learned Claims Tribunal. However, in absence of this admissible piece of evidence and proof of the nature of occupation and income, the claimant/injured, who is major, is to be treated as doing the work of Labourer for the purpose of earning livelihood and for the purpose of assessing the income of the labourer, it will be appropriate to take into consideration the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 in respect of worker employed in agriculture. The appellant is a resident of jurisdiction of a city which is notified as Class ‘C’ city and for the period from 1.10.2017 to 31.3.2018, the monthly income under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 fixed by the competent authority for a worker employed in agriculture was Rs. 6900/- per month. Under these circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, it will be appropriate to accept income of appellant/claimant as Rs.6900/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 12.Next submission of the counsel for the appellant is with respect to non- awarding of the amount of compensation towards future prospect. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandramani Nanda Vs. Sarat Chandra Swain & Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2859 while considering the award of compensation towards the future prospects in the case of permanent disability has held that the claimant who suffer permanent disability is also entitled for loss of future prospects and held thus:- “14.3 However, the Tribunal and the High Court both have failed to consider the fact that the 5 appellant is also entitled for enhancement on account of future prospects. Hence, in line with the law laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi10, given the age of appellant was 32 years at the time of accident, he is entitled to 40% future prospects.“ In case at hand, the appellant had suffered 48% of permanent disability on his person which is having the effect of 35% loss of earning capacity and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the appellant will also be entitled for loss of future prospects. As on the date of accident, the appellant was aged about 24 years, therefore, in the facts of the case, there shall be addition of 40% of the assessed income for computing the amount of compensation under the head of loss of future prospects. 13.The Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.12,000/- under the head of loss of income during period of treatment i.e. 2 months. Since the monthly income of appellant is reassessed, therefore, compensation under the head of loss of income during period of treatment is also required to be recomputed. It is ordered accordingly. 14.Going by the medical bills produced by appellant as Ex.A-2, Ex.A-12 to Ex.A-15, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.1078/- for medical expenses which is just and does not call for any interference. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards future treatment; Rs.25,000/- towards pain and sufferings; Rs.5000/- for attendant, which in the given facts and circumstances of the case is also just and proper. 6 15.Perusal of impugned award reveals that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded anything towards conveyance expenses. Appellant has taken inpatient treatment in Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur for a period of 17 days, as mentioned in discharge summary (Ex.A-1), during this period he might have spent some amount towards conveyance and hence, the appellant is awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation under the head of conveyance. 16. Looking to nature of injuries sustained by appellant, it is clear that he would not be able to enjoy the amenities of life as another normal person can. The disability suffered by him would also have an impact on his social and married life. Therefore, in given facts and circumstances of case, I deem it proper to award a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the appellant towards loss of amenities in life. 17.Accordingly, monthly income of appellant is taken as Rs.6900/- as assessed above, and by adding 40% of assessed income towards loss of future prospect, total monthly income of appellant comes to Rs.9660/- (6900+40% of 6900) and annual comes to Rs.1,15,920/- (9660x12). Applying the multiplier of 18, as applied by the Claims Tribunal as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, total income comes to Rs.20,86,560/-. As already held by Tribunal that appellant suffered 35% loss of earning capacity, therefore, appellant has suffered loss of income of Rs.7,30,296/- (35% of 2086560). Apart from this, appellant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.13,800/- (6900x2) towards loss of income during period of treatment. Appellant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.30,000/- for loss of 7 amenities and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance expenses. Now, the appellant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.8,30,174/- (730296+ 13800 + 1078 + 20000 + 25000 + 10000 + 30000). 18.Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain as it is. 19.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey