-1- NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 567 of 2019 1 - Pravin Kumar S/o Lalji Chandrakar Aged About 23 Years R/o Near Shakti My Mandir Pandariya Road, Mungeli, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ---(Claimant), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Devendra @ Raju S/o Kamta Prasad Sharma Aged About 16 Years Through S/o Kamta Prasad Sharma, R/o Kali My Ward Kharripara Mungeli, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ---(Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle Hero No. C.G.28/b./5424), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2 - Kamta Prasad S/o Shambhulal Sharma Aged About 45 Years R/o Kali My Ward Kharripara Mungeli, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ---(Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle Hero No. C.G.28/b./5424), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3 - The National Insurance Company Limited Vyapar Vihar Marg Gurukripa Tower Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---(Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Motor Cycle Hero No. C.G.28/b./5424), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant/Claimant/injured : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate along with Ms. Shalini Jangde, Advocate For Respondents No.3 : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For respondents No.1 & 2 : None appears though served. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29.10.2025 1) Heard. 2) The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against an award passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) in Claim Case No.18/2017 dated 04.10.2018, whereby, the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs.1,20,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum on -2- account of injuries sustained by the claimant. 3) The facts of the present case are that on 17.05.2016 at about 4:00 p.m., the driver of the offending motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.28/B/5424 by driving it rashly and negligently crushed the right leg, resultantly, the claimant sustained grievous injury over thumb of right leg. He remained hospitalized for 7 days at Mission Hospital Mungeli and thereafter Gayatri Hospital Raipur from 27.05.2016 to 30.05.2016. In surgery, his thumb of right leg was amputated. The claimant filed claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act and claimed a sum of Rs.6,50,000/-. The respondents filed reply; learned Tribunal framed issues; the parties led evidence and thereafter award was passed. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would submit that the learned Tribunal has not awarded fair compensation though there was amputation of thumb of right leg. He would contend that the medical bills to the tune of Rs.82,942/- were presented but the learned Tribunal awarded sum of Rs.70,000/- only. He would further contend that the learned Tribunal has failed to award compensation for pain and suffering and further failed to award compensation for conveyance. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly. 5) On the other hand, Mr. Dhurandhar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Singroul. He would submit that the claimant failed to -3- examine the treating doctor. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. He would contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7) Though the claimant could not examine the treating doctor but the Insurance Company failed to adduce evidence to falsify the fact that there was no accident and there was no amputation of thumb of right leg of the claimant. The medical bills have also not been disputed. Admittedly, the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for amputation of thumb of right leg of the claimant. Therefore, the appellant would be entitled to get compensation on this count. On the other conventional heads, learned Tribunal has awarded meager amount. Learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for conveyance. 8) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the compensation requires recomputation and same is being revisited herein below : Sr.No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. For Amputation Rs.25,000/- Rs.50,000/- 2. For medical expenses Rs. 70,000/- Rs. 70,000/- 3. For pain and suffering and loss of earning Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 30,000/- -4- 4. For special diet Rs.5,000/- Rs.10,000/- 5. For conveyance Nil Rs.10,000/- 6. For attendant Rs.5,000/- Rs.15,000/- 7. Total Rs. 1,20,000/- Rs. 1,85,000/- 9) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,85,000/- Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.1,20,000/-, the appellant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.65,000/- The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of its realization. The rest of the terms and conditions shall remain intact. The Insurance Company shall be at liberty to recover the amount from respondent No.2 within a period of 60 days. 10) Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. SD/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha