1 2025:CGHC:53800 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1959 of 2019  Santosh S/o Laxman Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Muli, Police Chowki, Bakawand, Police Station Nagarnar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Prabhunath Baghel S/o Bhagatram Aged About 26 Years Caste Muriya, R/o Village Kachnar Bhirlinga, Police Station Kotwali, District Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2. National Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Tahsil Jagdalpur, Near Bade Post Office, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : None, though served For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 4-11-2025 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 Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.11.07 13:40:27 +0530 2 26.7.2019 passed by Third Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bastar, Place Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Claim Case no. 26/2018 ,whereby Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,08,090/- with interest @ 9% per annum on account of injuries sustained by the appellant. 2) The case in brief is that on 22.10.2016 at about 10:30 a.m., appellant herein was travelling alongwith Purushottam on motorcycle and respondent no. 1/driver of the offending motorcycle bearing registration no. CG-17-KK-0579 driving it rashly and negligently, dashed the vehicle of appellant due to which appellant sustained grievous injuries in his right leg. 3) Appellant himself had filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.24,15,000/-; 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 and remained hospitalized for considerable period. He further submits that claimant was examined by the Medical Board and disability certificate showing disability to the extent of 45% was issued in favor of the claimant but Claims Tribunal has assessed the functional disability to the extent of 15%. He further submits that Claims Tribunal has assessed the notional monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 4,500/- whereas he was a mason and in absence of any evidence, Claims Tribunal ought to have applied 3 the minimum wage matrix applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh at the relevant time. He contends that Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards future prospects, thus compensation requires reconsideration. 5) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2/ 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. 6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, considered their rival submissions and perused the records with utmost circumspection. 7) Admittedly, Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the claimant to be Rs. 4,500/- whereas according to the minimum wage matrix applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh, minimum wages payable to an unskilled labourer in October, 2016 was Rs. 6,200/- per month and Claims Tribunal ought to have considered that figure. Hence income of the appellant needs to be recomputed suitably. Further, Claims Tribunal has erred in law in not awarding compensation for future prospect, therefore this Court is of the view that appellant is entitled to receive an additional compensation of 40% towards future prospect. However, under conventional heads, Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. 4 8) 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 Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Loss of earning Rs. 1,21,500 Rs. 1,67,400/- 2. Future Prospect NIL Rs. 2,34,360/- (@40%) 3. Medical bills Rs. 41,590/- Rs. 41,590/- 4. Future Medical expenses Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 25,000/- 5. Pain and suffering Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 5,000/- 6. Special Diet and Attendant Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- 7. Transportation Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 5,000/- TOTAL Rs. 2,08,090/- Rs. 3,20,950/- 9) For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs.2,08,090/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,20,860/-. Hence, the appellant/claimant is held entitled for an additional amount of 5 Rs.1,12,860/-. 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. Insurance Company would be at liberty to recover the amount of compensation after satisfying the award. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a