NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.A.C. No. 802 of 2025 Yadram Dhruv, S/o Punitram Dhruv, aged about 42 years, R/o Village- Seoni, Police Station Mandir Hasoud, District- Raipur (C.G.) ------ Appellant Versus 1 - Vijay Bhoi, S/o Kalachand Bhoi, aged about 32 years, R/o Village- Saldih, Police Station Sankra, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) (Driver Of Alleged Offending Vehicle Car Bearing Registration No. C.G.06-Gv-8838) 2 - Ashish Pradhan, S/o Dalganjan Pradhan, R/o Village- Saldih, Police Station Sankra, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) (Owner Of Alleged Offending Vehicle Car Bearing Registration No. C.G.06-Gv-8838) 3 - IFCO Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Officer, Ifco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited, 205 M.M. Silver Plaza Ring Road No. 01, Near Mining Office, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Alleged Offending Vehicle Car Bearing Registration No. C.G.06-Gv- 8838) --- Respondents For Appellant : Shri S.P. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Shrejal Gupta, Advocate appeared on behalf of Shri Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 04 /05/2026 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant / claimant under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’). The challenge in this appeal is to an award dated 01/02/2025 passed in Claim Case No. 360/2023 by the IV Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (CG) (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”). 2. By the award impugned, against a claim of Rs. 22,50,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.10,18,280- along-with 9% ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2026.05.18 16:24:27 +0530 -2- interest in favour of the appellant / claimant on account of the injuries and disablement sustained by him in an accident that occurred on 01/02/2025 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Car bearing registration No. CG-06/GV-8838. Driven by respondent No.1; owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3 / Insurance Company. 3. As per the pleadings in the claim application filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, on the date of accident i.e. 05.03.2023, the appellant was talking with his friends near the Indian Petrol Pump at Village–Umariya turning after parking his motorcycle, at that time driver of the offending vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner dashed the appellant. As a result of the said accident, the appellant sustained severe injuries on his person including permanent disablement amputation of his left leg. He was admitted to MEKHARA, Hospital, Raipur for 16 days for treatment. Looking to the injuries sustained on the left leg, during treatment the upper part of the knee had to be amputated from the body. He was a mason and was earning Rs.9,000/- 4. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by filing joint written statement denied the averments of the claim application. The accident was not caused by the offending vehicle; rather, it occurred due to another car, and the present vehicle has been falsely implicated. 5. The respondent No. 3 also filed its statement and denied the averments, and in usual course pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license. There is a violation of terms and Policy of the Insurance Company. Thus, the application may be rejected. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. -3- 6. On the basis of above broad pleadings, learned tribunal framed six issues and after appreciation of material available on record, decided the same in favour of the appellant / claimant and awarded the above stated compensation in favour of the appellant / claimant and against the respondents. 7. The Tribunal assessed the functional disability to 60% on the basis of the disability certificate and awarded compensation in the following manner:- S.No. Head Calculation 1. For Artificial Limb Rs.31,080/- 2. For Medical Expenses Rs.10,000/- 3. For Transportation Rs.10,000/- 4. For Nutritional diet Rs.25,000/- 5. For Attendant Rs.10,000/- 6. For permanent disability / loss of Income Rs.09,07,200/- 7. For Mental and Physical Agony Rs.25,000/- Total compensation Rs.10,18,280/- with 9% interest 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant / claimant submits that though in the claim application monthly income of the deceased was pleaded Rs.9000/-. However, the appellant /claimant was earning more than the said amount. Apart from this, he submits that the Tribunal has assessed his functional disability at only 60%, which should be enhanced. The compensation awarded under all other conventional heads is also on the lower side, which also requires suitable enhancement by this Court. 9. Learned counsels for the respondents support the award and submits that though amputation above the ankle was caused to the left leg of the appellant which was considered to be 60 % for which disability was -4- considered 60% on the basis of disability certificate. Tribunal found that the functional disability to the tune of 60% on the basis of evidence available on record it does not require any interference by this Court. Apart from this she submits the appellant himself pleaded Rs.9000/- income per month which has been duly accepted by the Claims Tribunal. Thus, there cannot be any scope for enhancement of the income of the deceased. The compensation under all other conventional heads has also been reasonably awarded, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus appeal has no merit and liable to be dismissed. 10.Heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the record with utmost circumspection. 11.As per pleadings of the claim application, the appellant /claimant was a mason, he is a resident of Seoni Police Station, Mandirhasaud, District – Raipur and near by vicinity of capital city Raipur. He was found to be aged about 42 years. The residence of the appellant/claimant is just adjacent to the capital city – Raipur. The mason/labors who are residing nearby villages normally come to big city for earning his livelihood. Though only Rs. 9000/- was pleaded as monthly income of the appellant / claimant. In the deserving cases, the Courts and Tribunal can award compensation more than what has been claimed in the claim application. 12. Considering the entire evidence available on record, nature of job, date of accident i.e. 05.03.2023, age of the appellant and in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court Nagappa vs -5- Gurudayal Singh & Ors, reported in AIR 2003 SCC 674, the Tribunal has to look into the fact that just compensation has been awarded and it can grant just compensation more then which have been claimed, this court holds yearly income of the appellant to Rs.12,000/- per month. 13.Learned counsel for the appellant tried to persuade this Court on account of injuries sustained by him, he lost his entirely livelihood. Perusal of the record indicates that doctor has given him 60% disability. From perusal of the record it also appears that the appellant suffer permanent amputation above the ankle. The Tribunal has granted an amount towards the artificial leg. The assessment of 60% functional dependency by the learned Claims Tribunal appears to be based on proper appreciation of evidence brought on record, though entire capacity, the claimant could not perform his work. However, looking to his injuries he must have lost 60% from his earning capacity. Thus this finding with regard to functional disability of the appellant to 60% is hereby affirmed. 14.Taking into consideration, the evidence available on record, this court is reassessing the compensation as under :- S.No. Head Calculation 1. Monthly Income (Rs.12000/- per month) Rs.1,44,000/- (12000 X 12) 2. 25% future prospect Rs.36,000/- 3. Total yearly Income Rs.1,80,000/- (1,44,000 + 36000) 4. 60% loss of earning Rs.108,000/- 5. Future loss of earning by Rs.15,12,000/- -6- applying multiplier of 14 (108000 X 14) 6. For Medical treatment Rs.15000/- 7. For Transportation Rs.15,000/- 8. For Nutritional diet (as awarded by the Tribunal)) Rs.25,000/- 9. For attendant Rs.20,000/- 10. For Pain and Suffering Rs.50,000/- 11. For loss of amenities and enjoyment of life Rs.50,000/- 12. For artificial Limb Rs.31,080/- Total compensation Rs. 17,18,080/- 15. After deducting Rs.10,18,280/- as awarded by learned Tribunal enhanced compensation would come to Rs.06,99,800/- The respondent No.3 / Insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount with 6% interest from the date of filing of this appeal i.e. 27/03/2025 within period of 60 days from receipt of copy of this order. 16. After deposit 80% amount shall be invested as fixed deposit in nationalized bank in the name of appellant for 03 years by the Insurance Company. Remaining 20 % amount shall be paid to him by bank transaction / account payee cheque. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the award impugned to the above extent. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish