1 / 5 2025:CGHC:42851 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 735 of 2020 • Virendra Kumar S/o Gendram Shashtri Aged About 54 Years Occupation Govt. Servant, Resident of House No. 17/573, Beside Khushi Kirana Store, Behind Telephone Exchange Imalipara, Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant/ Applicant-Claimant versus 1. Amit Kumar S/o Kishor Masih Aged About 30 Years R/o Mission Compound Road, Takhatpur, Police Station And Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, (Owner /Driver of Offending Vehicle Auto Bearing Registration No. C.G. 10-A F 6468) 2. Royal Sunderam General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Rama Trade Centre, Infront of First Floor Rajeev Plaza, Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer of Offending Vehicle Auto Bearing Registration No. C.G. 10-A F 6468) ---Respondents/ Non-applicants ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 25/08/2025 1. There is no representation on behalf of Respondent No. 1, though served. 2. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2020, application for condonation of delay of 47 days in filing this appeal. 3. On due consideration of the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties as also reasons assigned in the application, it is allowed, delay of 47 days in filing of this appeal is hereby condoned. PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 5 4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that liability to satisfy award is upon non-applicant No. 2/ Respondent No. 2, which is represented by its counsel, hence, appeal be heard finally at motion stage. 5. Submission of learned counsel for appellant is not opposed by counsel for Respondent No. 2. 6. With the consent of the parties, case is heard finally. 7. Appellant-claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”), challenging the award dated 11.10.2019 passed by Learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 846/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part, awarded total sum of ₹ 4,39,930/- as compensation in motor accidental injury case. 8. This appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of amount of compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Motor accident occurred on 06.04.2018 at about 07:00 pm, involvement of vehicle autorickshaw bearing number CG10-AF-6468 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”) owned and driven by non-applicant No. 1 as also non-applicant No. 2 being insurer and liability to satisfy the amount of compensation fastened upon non-applicant No. 2 is not in dispute. 9. In the facts of the case, this Court is not discussing in detail of pleadings made by the claimants in their claim application, reply filed by non- applicants therein and discussed by the Claims Tribunal in the impugned award, however, only considering the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties on enhancement of compensation. 10. Learned counsel for appellant-claimant would submit that the Claims Tribunal erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the 3 / 5 case. Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards loss of income during period of treatment and further towards grievous injuries suffered by him. He contended that claimant was an employee of police department on the date of accident. Though there is averment that he was earning salary before the accident, however, appellant might not have worked for couple of months due to grievous injuries suffered by him on his hand and shoulder and therefore appellant have suffered loss of income for a period of about two months. He would also submit that appellant underwent operation of his hand and shoulder and plating was done. Therefore, compensation to be awarded towards grievous injuries. 11. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has awarded entire medical bills as placed/ produced by appellant- claimant and further awarded ₹ 20,000 under the head of pain and suffering, ₹ 10,000 towards special diet and ₹ 5,000 for conveyance and attendant, which is just and proper. There is no evidence that appellant suffered loss of income during course of treatment as the salary which he was receiving prior to date of accident is also receiving by him after accident. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 13. In the pleadings made in the claim application, appellant-claimant has specifically pleaded that he took treatment in hospital from 06.04.2018 to 24.04.2018. The only ground raised by learned counsel for appellant is that loss of income during period of treatment is not awarded to claimant. Admittedly, from perusal of document which is placed on record of the S.K.B. Multi Specialty Hospital and Trauma Centre, Bilaspur, it is appearing 4 / 5 that appellant suffered fracture of right distal radius and on Clavical bone, plating was done with right distal radius and also of clavical bone as mentioned in Ext. A-7. He was admitted in hospital on 06.04.2018 and the operation was done on 09.04.2018 and 11.04.2018 as mentioned in Ext. A- 8. Occupation of appellant has been mentioned as Head Constable/ driver in police department. For work of driver, hand and shoulder is mostly used and therefore looking to the nature of injury suffered by appellant, in the opinion of this Court, he might not have joined the service for about one month. Even if appellant will be entitled of certain leave as per service rules including medical leave which might have utilized by him, however, said leaves could have been utilized by the employee for some other medical ailment, if any, in future. Therefore, appellant suffered loss of income for one month. 14. Tribunal has assessed income of appellant as ₹ 37,000 per month and therefore I find it appropriate to award ₹ 37,000 for loss of income during treatment period. Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards grievous injuries, as discussed above and therefore I find it appropriate to award ₹ 20,000 towards grievous injuries. The amount of compensation awarded on other heads is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 15. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellant-claimant requires re-computation, which is as under. Particulars Compensation Loss of income of one month ₹ 37,000/- Grievous injuries ₹ 20,000/- Medical Expenses (maintained) ₹ 4,04,930/- Pain and suffering (maintained) ₹ 20,000/- Special Diet (maintained) ₹ 10,000/- Conveyance and Attender (maintained) ₹ 5,000/- Total ₹ 4,96,930/- 5 / 5 16. Now the appellant/claimant shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 4,96,930/- instead of ₹ 4,39,930/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. • Any amount paid to the appellant-claimant pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. • Rest of the conditions as imposed by the Claims Tribunal in the impugned award shall remain intact. 17. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn