1 2025:CGHC:42852 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1228 of 2019 1 - Radheshyam Singh Thakur S/o Govardhan Singh Thakur Aged About 63 Years Urdana City Kotwali, Taluka, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Suresh Kumar Rathia S/o Ramayan Rathia Aged About 25 Years Village Bahrikela, Police Station And Tahsil Gharghora Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chait Ram Rathia S/o Mathu Rathia, R/o Village Bahrikela Juna Dih, Police Station And Tahsil Gharghoda, Raigarh District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager Chalamandalam General Insurance Company Near Axis Bank Raigarh, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Ravi Kumar Banjare, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Ramayan Yadav, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 25/08/2025 1. Appellant/Claimant filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 02.02.2019 passed by the First Additional Motor Accident SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, District – Raigarh (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 39/2018. 2. Motor-accidental injuries suffered by the appellant, involvement of offending vehicle, Respondent No. 3/Non-Applicant No. 3 to be insurer of the offending vehicle and liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company is not in dispute, hence, this Court is not adverting to the facts as pleaded in the claim application, reply and discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned award. However, this Court is only considering the grounds raised by the counsel for appellant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation and submissions of counsels for the respective parties in this regard. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards the loss of income during period of treatment overlooking the fact that the appellant suffered 40% disability as mentioned in Ex. P/2 (c) issued by the Medical Board and also not awarded the compensation towards future prospects. The amount of compensation awarded under the other heads in the facts of the case, is much less. Hence, he prays for enhancement of the amount of compensation suitably. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company opposes the submission made by the counsel for appellant and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation towards the disability, pains and sufferings, medical expenses and compensation on other heads of which, the claimant is entitled for. The compensation awarded is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of claim case. 6. Claimant has filed the discharge ticket of Dr. Arya Hospital, Raigarh in which, date of admission is mentioned as 14.01.2014 and discharge on 28.01.2014. Nature of injury suffered by the appellant is also mentioned as segmental fracture of femur right and lateral fracture of tibia right, compound grade – 1. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 47,000/- towards the medical expenses. Before this Court during the course of argument, learned counsel for the appellant could not be able to point out any of the medical bills/claim which was placed before the Claims Tribunal, was not considered and awarded. Thus, it cannot be said that the award of compensation under the head of medical expenses is less. 7. Claims Tribunal considering the Disability Certificate Ex. P/2 (c), evidence of the doctor has awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- towards disability and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards pains and sufferings, Rs. 30,000/- towards the attendant, conveyance and special diet. 8. The Disability Certificate which is placed on record as Ex. P/2 (c) would show that the Medical Board has mentioned physically disabled/physical impairment/temporary disability/likely to improve and the disability to be of temporary in nature. Dr. Rajkumar Gupta is examined as AW -2. In his evidence, he referred to the nature of injuries in his cross-examination, he stated that there was stiffness on hip bone, 40% temporary disability and the certificate of disability was issued for a period of 02 years advising him to take physiotherapy. He also stated that the appellant was also advised for his examination after 02 years. From record of claim case, it is appearing that the 4 appellant after 02 years of the issuance of the Disability Certificate Ex. P/2 (c), has again not himself examined by the Medical Board for assessing the percentage of disability. In the above facts of the case, submission of counsel for the appellant that the appellant suffered 40% disability and the Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding proper compensation is not sustainable, accordingly, it is repelled. 9. Claimant was a government servant working in the forest department as Forest Guard. Nature of employment of the appellant is to visit forest area on each day and therefore, in the facts of the case, looking to the injuries suffered by him, he may not have worked for about 02 months. Even if the Claimant was government servant and he may be entitled for leaves of different kinds as per service rules including medical leave, however, the said benefit of leave can be availed by him some other time for his other ailment, but the said leave has been used by the applicant for treatment of his motor accidental injuries. In the facts of the case, the appellant suffered loss of income towards leave which he has used, during the course of treatment and therefore, he is entitled for compensation towards loss of leave for two months. 10. The injured or the claimants are to be awarded just amount of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Considering entirety of the facts of the case, I am of the view that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount of compensation towards loss of income during the period of treatment of 02 months. The claimant has placed on record copy of the salary-slip mentioning his gross-salary as Rs. 27,648/-, therefore, loss of income for a 5 period of 02 months would come to Rs. 55,296/- (27,648 X 2). It is ordered accordingly. 11.For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellants. S. No. Heads Compensation 1. Loss of income during laid down period : Rs. 55,296/- 2. Future Medical Expenses : (+) Rs. 47,000/- 3. Disability : (+) Rs. 1,00,000/- 4. Pains and sufferings : (+) Rs. 1,00,000/- 5. Special diet, Attendant and Conveyance Expenses : (+) Rs. 30,000/- Total Compensation : Rs. 3,32,296/- 12. Now, the Appellant/Claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs. 3,32,296/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 13. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/-d/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey