Page No.1 of 5 IN MAC-1462-2018 2025:CGHC:51121 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1462 of 2018 [Arising out of award dt. 06.04.2018, passed in Claim Case No.306/2015 (Dhanraj Singh v. Vasudev Som and another) by the 1st Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (CG)] Dhanraj Singh S/o. Jainath Singh Aged About 51 Years R/o Room No. D/21/13 Housing Board Colony Jamul Durg (Chhattisgarh) Present Address, Near Patel Dairy Camp-1, Road No. 18, Bhilai Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Vasudev Som S/o. Shri Ram Prasad Soni, R/o Milind Nagar Urla, Karket Road, Premium Gate No. 6, Vidhya Vihar Road, Police Station Ghat No. 468 (Side Of Sharif Shop) Distt. Mumbai (Maharastra). (Owner And Driver Of Vehicle Truck No. M.H.04 C.U.- 5791), District : Mumbai, Maharashtra 2 - Cholamandalam Insurance Company O/o Dare House Second Flore No. 2 N.S.C. Bose Road Chennai, 600001. Through Local Branch Office Room No. 5, Second Floor Chouhan State, G.E. Road Supela Bhilai, Pin No. 400070 District Durg (Chhattisgarh). (Insurer Of Vehicle Truck No. M.H.04 C.U.- 5791), District : Chennai, Tamil Nadu ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Ms. Siddi Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Shrishti Upadhaya, Advocate Amicus Curiae : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 14.10.2025 SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 5 IN MAC-1462-2018 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dt. 06.04.2018, passed in Claim Case No.306/2015 (Dhanraj Singh v. Vasudev Som and another) by the 1st Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (CG), whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.87,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident occurred on 19.10.2013. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. Claims Tribunal erred in not assessing any amount towards loss of income of appellant. Further, the learned Claims Tribunal has also erred in awarding less amount on other conventional heads i.e. pain and suffering, transportation, special diet etc., which may also be enhanced suitably. Therefore, the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the appellant have failed to prove nature of occupation and income by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, hence, the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference. Page No.3 of 5 IN MAC-1462-2018 4. Mr. Akash Shrivastava, learned Amicus Curiae by submits that the learned Claims tribunal has erred in not assessing amount on the head of loss of income of the appellant/claimant and has also not awarded any amount on other conventional heads. Therefore, the same may be suitably enhanced. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. In the case at hand, since the appellant has suffered injuries- amputation of left leg great toe, third toe and fifth toe of left leg and, due to which, he is not able to perform his daily work, it appears that the learned Claims tribunal has awarded less amount on other conventional heads. Moreover, vide disability certificate (Ex.P/99), it is clear that the appellant has suffered 28% disability and, therefore, as per the provisions of Workmen Compensation Act qua Schedule 1, Part-2 in Sr. No.39 & 45, the disability of the appellant is to be considered 14+5 =19% permanent disability. Even, the appellant used to work as Supervisor in Chhattisgarh Distilleries Kumhari and earn Rs.11,000/- per month, therefore, it would be appropriate to assess the amount on the head of loss of income of the appellant/claimant. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is liable to be enhanced. Page No.4 of 5 IN MAC-1462-2018 7. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi 1, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors2 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors 3 , this Court is computing the compensation as below:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Income of the appellant NIL Rs.11,000 x 12 = Rs.1,32,000/- 2. Loss of Income due to disability NIL + (19% of Rs.1,32,000/- = Rs.25,080/-) 3. Future Prospect NIL + 15% of Rs.25,080/- = Rs.3,762 4. Multiplier NIL Rs.25,080/- + Rs.3,762/- = Rs.28,842 x 11 = Rs.3,17,262/- 5. Loss of Income during treatment Rs.26,622/- has been given by ESIC as per Para-34 of award Rs.11,000/- x 6 = Rs.66,000/- - Rs.26,622/- = Rs.39,378/- 6. Medical Expenses (+) Rs.60,000/- (+) Rs.60,000/- 7. Transportation NIL (+) Rs.25,000/- 8. Pain and suffering NIL (+) Rs.50,000/- 9. Special Diet NIL (+) Rs.15,000/- 10. Assistance (+) Rs.2,000/- (+) Rs.15,000/- 11. Future Medical Treatment NIL (+) Rs.50,000/- 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 Page No.5 of 5 IN MAC-1462-2018 12. Loss of enjoyment of life NIL (+) Rs.50,000/- 13 In all conventional head (+) Rs.25,000/- As mentioned above. Total Rs.87,000/- Rs.6,21,640/- 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.87,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.6,21,640/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.87,000/-, the appellant is held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.5,34,640/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application i.e. 02.01.2015 before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. 10. While parting with the record, I must place on record the appreciation for assistance rendered by Mr. Akash Shrivastava, learned amicus curiae, who not only argued the case at length on short notice but has also brought relevant facts and legal position to my notice and further submitted written submission. s@if sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge