1 2025:CGHC:50048 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 932 of 2020  Govinda Banjare S/o Santram Banjare Aged About 27 Years Permanent R/o Vill.- Khiloura, P.S.- Bhatapara (Rular), District- Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Banjari Chowk, Rawanbhata, P.S.- Khamtarai, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Hakimmuddin S/o Immamuddin, Through- Pal Transport Company R/o In Front Of Korba Stadium, P.S.- City Kotwali Korba, District- Korba, (C.G.) (Driver Of Vehicle No.- C.G.- 12 As-0781) 2. M/s Pal Transport Company Through- In Charge Officer M/s Pal Transport Company R/o In Front Of Korba Stadium, P.S.- City Kotwali Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) Naresh Kumar Jain Through Pal Transport, Korba, P.S. And District Korba, C.G. (Owner Of Vehicle No.- C.G.- 12 As-0781) 3. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through- Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. G.E. Road, Raipur, Tah. And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle No.- C.G.-12 As-0781) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Bennoon, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.N. Pusty, Advocate Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.10.14 11:12:30 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 8-10-2025 1) Claimant-appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'Act of 1988') for enhancement of the compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 17.3.2020 passed by First Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case no. 707/2018 , whereby Tribunal allowed application filed under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 in part, calculated total compensation of Rs.9,42,800/- with interest @ 9% per annum on account of injuries sustained by the appellant. 2) The case in brief is such that on 18.5.2018 at about 10:00 a.m., appellant herein was driving his own motorcycle bearing registration no. CG-04-HL-0417. When he reached near the over bridge, respondent no. 1/driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. CG-12-AS-0781 driving it rashly and negligently, dashed the vehicle of appellant due to which appellant sustained grievous injuries on various parts of his body. FIR was lodged against respondent No. 1 at P.S. Bhatapara City for the offence punishable U/s 279, 337, 338 of IPC and Crime No. 137/2018 has been registered and charge-sheet has been filed. 3) Appellant himself has filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.46,98,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident, appellant was earning Rs. 3 10,000/- per month. He was working as Mason. His family was dependent upon his income. The accident resulted in amputation of right leg below knee. Insurance Company filed reply ; parties led evidence and learned Claims Tribunal passed the award. 4) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in the motor accident, appellant sustained grievous injuries which led to amputation of right leg below knee and the extent of disability has been assessed by the Medical Board to be 50% and disability certificate (Ex.P-94) has been proved by Dr. Wasim Raja (AW-2). He further submits that appellant was earning his livelihood working as Mason and he suffered amputation of right leg below knee therefore learned Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed the functional disability to the extent of 100%. He contends that learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation for prosthetic leg and under other conventional heads, meager amount has been awarded. He further contends that the quantum of compensation is not in accordance with law and deserves to be suitably enhanced. 5) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3/ Insurance Company opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and submits that amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to claimant cannot be said to be on lower side, rather it is just and proper in the given facts and circumstances of the case and does not call for any interference. 4 6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, considered their rival submissions and perused the records with utmost circumspection. 7) As regards the income of the appellant, though the claimant has pleaded in the claim petition that he was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month by working as a mason. But the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant only Rs. 6,000/- per month and in the considered opinion of this same is on a lower side. Therefore, this court finds that the tribunal has erred in assessing the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.6,000/- instead of Rs. 8,100/- (minimum wages at the time of incident as per notional income of the unskilled person). Hence income of the appellant needs to be recomputed suitably. 8) With regard to the disability of the appellant caused by the accident, although the disability certificate of the appellant shows that the disability is up to the extent of 50% as per Ex. P-94. But, the appellant was working as a mason and there is amputation of right leg below knee and learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the functional disability to the extent of 50%. It is not in dispute that amputation is going to hamper the appellant’s daily work and disturb his profession. Hence this court is enhancing the functional disability from 50% to 100%. Thus, learned Claims Tribunal erred in law in calculating 40% of the annual income and assessing loss of income of Rs. 28,800/- per annum. Further, learned Claims Tribunal has erred in law in not awarding compensation for prosthetic leg, 5 therefore this Court is of the view that Insurance Company shall pay an additional compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards prosthetic leg. 9) Learned Claims Tribunal is justified in applying correct multiplier looking to the age of claimant and awarded Rs. 2,80,000 towards the medical bills and Rs. 80,000/- in respect of pain and agony. Learned Claims Tribunal has also awarded Rs. 50,000/- towards attendant charges, special diet and other medical expenses. In the opinion of this Court, the compensation under aforementioned heads requires no interference. 10)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 (supra) 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 Compensa tion awarded by this Court 1. Medical Expenses Rs. 2,80,000/- Rs. 2,80,000/- 2. For Assistance, Diet and Transportation Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 50,000/- 3. Assessment of Income Monthly Income Rs. 6,000 x 12 = Rs.72,000/- per Monthly Income Rs. 6 annum and assessed 40% disability, accordingly after calculating 40% of the annual income, assessed loss of income Rs. 28,800/- per annum 8,100 x12 = Rs. 97,200/- per annum (Assessed the disability 100%) 4. Age 31 years 31 years 5. Multiplier 16 16 6. Loss of Income Rs. 28,800 x 16 = Rs.4,60,800 + Rs. 72,000 (Loss of one year salary) = Rs.5,32,800/- Rs. 97,200 x 16 = Rs. 15,55,200/- 7. Pain and Suffering Rs. 80,000/- Rs. 80,000/- 8. Prosthetic Limb Nil Rs. 1,00,000/- TOTAL Rs. 9,42,800/- Rs. 20,65,200/- 11) For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs.9,42,800/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs.20,65,200/-. Hence, the appellant/claimant is held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.11,22,400/-. 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 @ 6% per anuum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal, till its realization. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 7 12)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 A j i n k y a