1 2025:CGHC:26930 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Order Reserved on 24.03.2025. Order Passed on 23.06.2025 MAC No. 647 of 2017 1 - Pushkar Sahu S/o Late Shivlal Sahu, aged about 41 years, R/o House of the Kishor Sahu, Bangalipara Gali No. 03, Sarkanda, P.S. Sarkanda, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, C.G. ..............Claimant ... Appellant Versus 1 - Ashwani Kumar Kashyap S/o Yadram Kashyap, R/o Village Kamta, P.S. Shivrinarayan, Tahsil Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G. ...............Non Applicants/ Driver of Tractor No. C.G.11/A/6005 and Trolley No. C.G./11/ZG/2490, 2 - Narad Prasad Kashyap S/o Ganesh Prasad Kashyap, R/o Village Kamta, P.S. Shivrinarayan, Tahsil Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G. ...............Owner of Tractor No. C.G.11/A/6005 and Trolley No. C.G./11/ZG/2490, District : Janjgir-Champa, C.G. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Aman Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. H.V. Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C.A.V. Order 1. The Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') questioning the legality and propriety of the award dated 01.02.2017 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 37/2013, whereby the learned Cliams Tribunal has awarded the claim against the appellant to the tune of Rs.1,55,000/- with interest of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realization in favour of the appellant/claimant. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 07.04.2013 the present appellant/claimant was coming in his Motor cycle bearing registration No. C.G./4K/5606 along with his friend Nand Kumar Shrivas from Village Pakariya to Tiwari Para. When they reached near Morda turn located in the main road the respondent No. 1 by driving offending vehicle tractor and trolley bearing registration No. C.G./11/A/6005 and C.G./11/ZG/2490 in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motor cycle of the present appellant as a result of which the appellant/claimant received injuries on his head, chest, both the legs and hands and also internal injuries on his body. Thereafter, the appellant was admitted to hospital and the present appellant/claimant had underwent prolonged treatment and suffering a permanent disability. The present appellant has proved actionable negligence against the respondents in order to prove the pecuniary and special loss suffered by him. The evidence adduced by him remained unrebutted and unchallenged. The present appellant is a cultivator which is the only source of his income for maintaining his family. Due to this accident he was prevented from cultivating his field for considerable period resulting loss of his income and also for the family and the appellant/claimant is suffering loss of efficiency after the accident resulting permanent loss of his income. 3. The Learned Tribunal while concluding the proceeding held that the 3 disablement is temporary in nature on the basis of the injury certificate exhibit 97C and also held that since the certificate does not bear any endowment as to the nature of the disablement, therefore, it cannot be said that the disablement is of permanent in nature and only allowed the expenses incurred towards treatment in the hospital and did not assess the loss of efficiency of the appellant. The total amount including conventional heads is Rs. 1,55,000/- out of which Rs. 1,15,000/- was spent for treatment. 4. The learned Tribunal has failed to conduct an enquiry as contemplated under Section 168 of Motor Vehicle Act read with Rule 226 of M.P./C.G. Motor Vehicle Rules 1994 and acted as a silent spectator. No efforts were being made in order to award just and proper compensation. The amount of compensation awarded cannot be said to be just and proper. Hence, this appeal on following grounds amongst other. 5. The Claims Tribunal after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on the record by the impugned award granted a total compensation of Rs.1,55,000/- in favour of the claimant with interest of 7.5% from the date of award till realization. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned award is bad-in-law as well as on fact, arbitrary hence liable to be enhanced suitably and the appellant is entitled for just and proper compensation. The appellant is deprived of his right to get just and proper compensation and also from fair adjudication of his claim case. The learned Tribunal could have procured information from competent authority by holding an enquiry under Rule 226 MP/CG State Motor Vehicle Rules 1994 to ascertain, the income of the appellant on the basis of the present scenario of the society. The compensation ought to 4 have been assessed on the basis of the permanent functional disablement occurred to the appellant. The learned Tribunal has awarded 6% interest which ought to have been 9% according to the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme court given in Uphar tragedy case. The compensation is assessed on a golden scale and the same cannot be said to be just compensation, hence the impugned award is liable to be enhanced in all counts/heads. 7. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Ramchandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Company Limited reported in AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2951 and also on the decision of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh & Anr reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2396. 8. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 supporting the impugned award and submits that the witness Dr. Hari Singh Chandel admitted in his cross-examination in paras 7 & 8 that handicapped certificate is only for leg and not for the whole body and also he was unable to explain that what effect would it be to the appellant’s work due to his disability. So, the learned Claims Tribunal rightly apreciated the oral and documentary evidence and awarded just and proper compensation. So, this appeal is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 9. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. It is clear from record of the learned Claims Tribunal that the learned Claims Tribunal finds that accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 01, but in issue No. 02, the learned 5 Claims Tribunal finds that the claimant was unable to prove that due to accident he became handicapped. The applicant filed disability certificate Ex. A-97 which was issued by the medical board and Dr. Hari Singh Chandel, who was member of District Medical Board also admitted this fact that they have examined the appellant and calculated 40% disability and issued disability certificate Ex. A-97 and he admitted his signature on A to A part and also identiifed signature of other members of Medical Board. In para 5, Dr. Hari Singh Chandel admitted this fact that it was true that treating doctor was not member of Medical Board, however, he himself stated that ‘’according to the prescribed procedure by the doctor who issued the certificate and verified it according to the current government rules and then issued the document from the District Medical Board vide Ex. A-97, but the learned Claims Tribunal did not appreciate this fact and only on this suggestion that the appellant had disability on his leg not on whole body, gave negative finding and issue No. 02. So, this finding is not sustainable regarding disability, but the appellant has not proved this fact that what loss has been incurred in the income due to this disability. 11. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Ramchandrappa (supra) held in paragraph 13 which is provided as under:- “13. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, this Court, while considering the award of compensation to the victim of motor accident for loss of future earning due to some permanent physical disability, has observed: “Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of 6 injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. What requires to be assesed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that the percentage loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation. (See for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New 7 India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (AIR 2010 SCC 3741) Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the Tribunal should consider and decidewith reference to the evidence: (i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary. (ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement; (iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is, the permanent disability sufered by the person. If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disabliity then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.” 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and for the fact that the appellant was admited in the hospital from 08.04.2013 to 8 25.04.2013, meaning thereby he was not able to work for at least 06 months, but the learned Claims Tribunal did not award any amount towards loss of income occurred for the said period. Therefore, this amount is liable to be suitably enhanced. S.No. Head Calculation (in rupees) 1 For loss of income during treatment for 06 months. Rs. 4,943 x 6 = Rs. 29,658/- 2. For medical expenses 1,25,000/- 3. For Pain and Suffering Rs. 50,000/- 4. For Special Diet Rs. 25,000/- 5. For Transport Rs. 25,000/- 6. Total compensation awarded Rs. 2,54,658/- 13. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the claimant/appellant is held entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 2,54,658/-. Since the Claims Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 1,55,000/-, after deducting the said amount, the claimant/appellant is entitled for enhanced amount of Rs. 99,658/-. This additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till realization. The amount received by the claimant, if any, shall be adjusted in the enhanced sum. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge U.K. Raju