1 / 2 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 951 of 2020 CHHAYA PATEL versus MANOHAR Order on Board 22/04/2025 Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate for appellant. Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate for Respondent No. 3. This is an admitted appeal. As per the office report, notice to Respondent No. 1 is reported to be unserved and the notice to Resp. No. 2 is reported to be served, however, there is no representation on his behalf. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company and it is represented through the counsel. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for appellant. In the aforementioned facts of the case, as of now, service PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 2 pwn upon Respondent No. 1 is dispensed with. With the consent of the parties, case is heard finally. Order passed separately. Signed and dated. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge 1 / 6 2025:CGHC:18071 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M A C No. 951 of 202 0 • Chhaya Patel D/o Manmohan Lal Patel Aged About 25 Years R/o - Ganga Nagar, Sector - 02, Mangala - Police Station - Civil Line Bilaspur, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant/ Claimant versus 1. Manohar S/o Manharan Khande, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Barduli, Amera, Police Station Pathriya, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. At Present Near Bhairavbaba Temple, Sooryavanshi Bada, Tifra, Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Driver of the Vehicle Truck No. C.G.10- C 1209) 2. Shekh Nijamuddin S/o Shekh Najiruddin, R/o House No. 12/2017, Ward No.- 17, Chhote Bhairprasad House, Faij Nagar Talapara Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Owner of the Vehicle Truck No. C.G.10- C 1209). 3. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office- Gurukripa Tower, In Front Of Ashish Auto Mobiles Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) (Insurer of the Vehicle Truck No. C.G.10- C 1209). --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 22/04/2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 14.01.2020 passed by Learned First Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 40/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 6 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 9,82,731/- as compensation in injury case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 28.01.2017 at about 03:30 p.m., when appellant was returning back to her home on scooty two wheeler vehicle after attending tuition class, at that relevant point of time, when she was taking a turn from Nehru Chowk towards Mungeli Naka, a truck bearing number CG10C/1209 driven rashly and negligently by Respondent No. 1/ Non-applicant No. 01 hit the two-wheeler being driven by appellant from its backside, caused accident, due to which she suffered grievous injuries. The accident was reported to Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur, based on which crime number 77/2017 for alleged offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code is registered. 3. Appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking ₹ 91,50,000/- as compensation pleading therein that on the date of accident she was about 25 years of age, was an able bodied person. In the accident all the five fingers of her left foot were completely cut off, the bone of her left hand was broken and she suffered serious injuries on the head, waist and other parts of the body. It was pleaded that before the accident, appellant was posted as Hostel Superintendent, Surajpur and was earning monthly salary of ₹ 25,000/-. 4. Respondent No. 1 & 2 /Non-applicant No. 1 & 2-Driver and the owner of the truck submitted their reply, denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further stated that on the date of accident non-applicant No. 01 had not driven the truck in a rash and negligent manner, but the appellant herself was driving her two-wheeler in a rash and negligent manner while overtaking other vehicle on the road due to which she lost control and fell down along with the two-wheeler scooty, for which she 3 / 6 herself is responsible. It was further stated that on the date of accident the truck was insured with non-applicant No. 3-Insurance Company and it was being driven as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, non-applicant No. 3 would be liable for compensation, if any, and pleaded for dismissal of the claim application filed against them. 5. Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company also filed its reply, denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further stated that on the date of accident, Non-applicant No. 1 was driving his truck carefully following the traffic signals. The truck is not involved in the accident, the appellant suffered injuries in the accident due to her own negligence. It is stated that the applicant and also the non- applicant No. 1 did not have a valid driving license to drive their respective vehicles on the date of the accident. There was violation of the conditions of the insurance policy as the truck was being driven without a valid and effective fitness and permit. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that appellant suffered grievous injuries and permanent disability due to accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of truck by non-applicant 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy and contributory negligence were not found to be proved, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 9,82,731/- as total compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application. 7. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre sum of compensation in the facts of the case. In the accident, fingers of her left foot have been amputed, suffered fracture on her left hand and she suffered serious injuries on her head, waist and other 4 / 6 parts of the body. She took treatment at Mahadev Hospital Bilaspur, she underwent surgery at Dr. Karla Burn & Plastic Surgery, Pachpedi, Raipur, presently her treatment is still going on. Before the accident, she was permanently posted as Hostel Superintendent, Surajpur and was getting a monthly salary of ₹ 25,000/-. Due to motor accidental injuries, she became permanently disabled and has suffered loss of income. He submits that learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded the amount of compensation on all the heads for which the appellant is entitled. He also contended that the Tribunal has not awarded the compensation towards future prospects which is to be awarded @ 40% because the appellant was below 40 years of age on the date of accident. Therefore, looking to the nature of work and injury suffered by her, the amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal considering entirety of the facts and circumstance of the case has awarded just and proper compensation which does not call for any interference of this Court. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. 10. Sofar as the submission of learned counsel for appellant with respect to non awarding of compensation towards future prospects is concerned, perusal of record and the evidence brought would show that after suffering injuries and the disability on left foot toe appellant herself has not appeared in her place of work and submitted resignation and thereafter as per her statement she is still working in the department. Considering the evidence of appellant, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded the compensation towards loss of earning for the period of two years for which appellant could not joined and work, at the place of her posting and thereafter considering the subsequent 5 / 6 pay slip has awarded the compensation for loss of income for two years accepting the income as pleaded at the time of accident. Hence, in the facts of the case, where the appellant is still under employment and getting the salary, therefore in the facts of the case, she is not entitled for the amount of compensation towards loss of future prospects. In the pleadings and evidence also she admitted that she is still working in the department and further she has come to the court with her own without any support. In paragraph 21 in her evidence she stated that she has completed her graduation in B.E. (Computer Science) and the work of computer is a sitting job. In the aforementioned evidence available on record, it cannot be said that the disability suffered by the appellant on her left foot will come in the way of her work and consideration of her name for the promotion. Therefore, I am of the view that the Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in not awarding compensation by adding 40% of assessed income towards future prospects, the submission of learned counsel for appellant in this regard is repelled. 11. Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of pleadings and the evidence brought on record has awarded the amount of compensation towards treatment to the tune of ₹ 3,17,731/-. Learned counsel for appellant could not able to point out that any of the bill which is produced, has escaped consideration by the Claims Tribunal. Hence, the amount of compensation awarded under the head of medical expenses, in the opinion of this Court, is just and proper and it does not call for any interference. Learned counsel for appellant could not able to point out from the record that the appellant could not able to work for more than 2 years. Learned Claims Tribunal considering the pleadings and the submission made by the appellant in the claim application and the evidence has awarded loss of income for 2 years, hence, the compensation awarded for the loss of income during the laid down period is also just and proper. Claims Tribunal has awarded the amount of compensation of ₹ 50,000/- towards pains and sufferings and ₹ 15,000/- towards conveyance, 6 / 6 special diet and attendant. The amount of compensation under the head of conveyance, special diet and attendant appears to be on lower side, I find it appropriate to enhance the said amount to ₹ 30,000/- instead of ₹ 15,000/-. Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation towards the grievous injury and disfigurement suffered by appellant who is 25 years unmarried lady and further not awarded compensation towards loss of amenities and joy in life for which she is entitled, therefore, I find it appropriate to award ₹ 1 Lakh under the head of grievous injury causing disfigurement over her leg, and further that she has to live her whole life with 40% disability, she cannot live her life like an ordinary lady and enjoy social and mental life, therefore, I find it appropriate to award ₹ 1 Lakh towards loss of amenities and joy in life. 12. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation requires recomputation, which is as under. 13. Now the appellant-claimant shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 11,97,731/- [₹ 3,17,731+ ₹ 6,00,000+ ₹ 50,000+ ₹ 30,000+ ₹ 1,00,000+ ₹ 1,00,000] instead of ₹ 9,82,731/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount paid to the appellant pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. 14. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn