1 2025:CGHC:30748 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1436 of 2018 1 - Smt. Pushpa Jaiswal W/o Shri Chiranjiv Jaiswal Aged About 50 Years R/o Bankimongra, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Surendra Kumar Mehta S/o Late Ramchandar Mehta, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Thelwadih, Tahsil Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Offending Truck Vehicle Bearing Registration C.G.04 J.C. 5658), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Santosh Singh S/o Mahasingh Agariya, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village - Thelwadih, Tahsil Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Truck Vehicle Bearing Registration C.G. 04 J.C. 5658), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - National Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Meenu Complex Kosabadi Korba, Tahsil Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Truck Vehicle Bearing Registration C.G. 04 J.C. 5658), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant :- Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Advocate For Respondent No. 2 :- Ms. Nilu Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. F.S.Khare, Advocate For Respondent No. 3:- Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 04.07.2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 16.05.2018 passed by the learned Additional Tribunal to the Court of Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim No.26/2013 (Smt. Pushpa Jaiswal vs. Surender Singh and others) whereby an amount of Rs. 1,63,797/- with 7% per annum from the date of application till its realization has been awarded by the Tribunal in the favour of the claimant/appellant herein while fastening liability upon the Insurance Company. 2. In the claim petition, the appellant has averred that on 02.08.2012, while returning to Bhilai Bazar in a Maruti Van and upon reaching near Laxman Colliery, Police Station Kusmunda, District Korba, at around 9:00 p.m., the offending truck bearing registration No. C.G. 04 J.C. 5658 (hereinafter called as ‘offending vehicle’), driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1, came from the opposite direction and violently collided with the van, causing the claimant to suffer grievous injuries. The claimant was hospitalized and underwent multiple operations, ultimately leading to 3 permanent disability. Due to the injuries sustained, the claimant suffered immense physical pain, mental trauma, and economic hardship, thereby claiming a compensation of Rs. 13,00,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the driver, owner, and insurer of the offending vehicle in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 26/2013. 3. The learned Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence led by both the parties, passed an award as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Against the said award, appellant-claimant is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal has failed to appreciate the gravity of the injuries and the extent of permanent disability suffered by the appellant due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending truck, resulting in immense physical, mental, and financial suffering. Despite clear and unrebutted evidence on record, including medical documents, disability certificate, and witness testimonies, the Tribunal has awarded an unjustly low compensation without proper application of the multiplier method, and without awarding adequate amounts under essential heads such as pain and suffering, loss of future income, loss of amenities, and medical expenses. The Tribunal has also failed to consider the long-term impact on the appellant’s livelihood and quality of life. Therefore, the impugned award is contrary to law, facts, and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Sarla Verma v. DTC , (2009) 6 4 SCC 121 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680. The compensation awarded is not commensurate with the physical, mental, and economic hardship suffered by the appellant, and therefore, it is prayed that the impugned award be set aside and the compensation be suitably enhanced in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 3 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the claimant- appellant was running a library at the time of the accident. At that time, her monthly income has been reasonably stated as Rs.11,000/-. This aspect of income should have been duly considered by the learned Claims Tribunal, which was unfortunately overlooked by the Tribunal and assessed Rs.4,498/- per month, which in the considered opinion of this Court is on lower side. Therefore, looking to the facts of the case and the nature of work of the claimant, I propose to recompute the monthly income of the claimant at ₹6,000/- per month. 8. As far as the issue of permanent disability is concerned, there is no certificate issued by a Medical Board. Hence, based solely on the certificate issued by the doctor who examined the claimant, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the permanent disability at 11%, 5 which does not warrant any interference. 9. However, under the head of “Mental and Physical Agony,” only ₹10,000/- has been awarded, which is inadequate. Accordingly, this amount is enhanced to ₹35,000/- under the said head. 10. In view of the above, the compensation is recalculated as follows:- Head of Compensation Amount (in ₹) Income of the claimant Rs.6,000/- per month Rs.72,000/- (per annum) Multiplier of 11 applied Rs.72,000/- x 17 = Rs.7,92,000/- Loss of earning capacity @ 11% Rs.87,120/- Mental and physical agony Rs.35,000/- Medical Bill Rs.88,486/- Total Compensation Rs.2,10,606/- 11. Since, the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.1,63,797/-, after deducting the same the claimant is held entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.46,809/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with the modification in the impugned award to the above extent. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha