1 2025:CGHC:30400 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 133 of 2019 1. Sunder Singh (Died And Deleted) Through Lrs. As Per Honble Court Order Dated 13-08-2024. 1.1 - (A) Smt. Champa Bai W/o Late Sunder Singh, Aged About 39 Years R/o Village-Kadamdhodhi, Police Station Kapu, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant-claimant versus 1. Ibraham S/o Lukas Tirkey Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Mudabahla, Nawapara, Police Station Bagbahar, Tahsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2. Habil S/o Tandhoram Tirkey Aged About 63 Years Occupation Owner Vehicle, R/o Village Mudabahla, Nawapara, Police Station Bagbahar, Tahsil Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, 3. United India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Office At Sarla Villa Building Chakradharnagar, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ….Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav & Mr. Atul Kumar Gavel, Advocates For Respondent No.3 : Mr. B.N. Nande and Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocates 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment on Board 3/7/2025 1. This appeal is filed seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh vide award dated 14.8.2018 in MACT No.33/17. 2. During pendency of this appeal, original appellant-claimant died on 17.12.2023 and thereafter on the basis of order dated 13.8.2024 passed by this Court allowing application for permission to implead legal heir, appellant herein i.e. wife, was substituted in place of deceased appellant and the matter was proceeded at her instance. 3. Brief facts of the case are that injured claimant (now deceased) has filed an application claiming compensation of Rs.52,84,000/-, under various heads, for the permanent disability suffered by him in an accident occurred on 8.12.2016 when tractor bearing registration mark CG13-LA- 0288, driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed motorcycle of claimant as a result of which his right leg was amputated. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, injured was working as Prerak and also Tailor, earning Rs.11000/- per month (2000+9000), however, due to accident, he is unable to do any work. 3 4. Non-applicant No.1 and 2, driver and owner of offending vehicle filed reply to application denying occupation, income and permanent disability suffered by injured in alleged accident. Non-applicant No.3/insurer also resisted the claim on various grounds including that there is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as driver of offending vehicle was not having valid license on the date of accident and the offending vehicle was plied without permit. 5. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.4,60,580/- and fastened liability upon insurance company to satisfy the award. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that injured claimant suffered (now deceased) amputation of his right leg above knee, the doctor has also issued disability certificate mentioning permanent disability to the extent of 55%, though the Claims Tribunal has assessed loss of future earning capacity as 100%, however, assessed the income of injured claimant at Rs.2,000/- only, which is contrary to the evidence of injured claimant wherein he has categorically stated that he was working as Prerak and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding future prospects and in awarding meager amount of compensation under other 4 heads. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 submits that admittedly the injured claimant (now deceased) has filed claim application on account of motor accidental injuries suffered by him which resulted in amputation of his right leg above knee. Considering the evidence of claimant that he was working as Prerak prior to accident and even after the accident, he is working on the same post, the Claims Tribunal assessed income of deceased as Rs.2,000/- and accordingly computed total compensation, which cannot be said to be erroneous. He next contended that the appellant herein is legal heir of injured claimant, who died during pendency of this appeal, and as such, she is not entitled for enhancement of amount of compensation. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record of claim case including impugned award. 9. Injured claimant (now deceased) met with accident with offending vehicle is not in dispute. Motor accidental injuries suffered by injured causing amputation of right leg above knee is also not in dispute. Disability certificate issued by the doctor mentioning 55% permanent disability is also not in dispute. Liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon respondent No.3 is also not in dispute. This appeal was initially filed by injured claimant seeking enhancement of 5 compensation. He died during pendency of this appeal and is substituted by his legal representative i.e. his wife. 10. As regards the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.3 that enhancement of compensation in an appeal at the instance of legal heir of deceased injured claimant could not be made, the issue with regard to continuance of the appeal by legal heir of deceased injured claimant seeking enhancement of compensation came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Kahlon alias Jasmail Singh Kahlon (deceased) through his legal representatives Narinder Kahlon Gosakan and another, reported in (2022) 13 SCC 494, considering its earlier decisions has observed that legal representative of the injured claimant deceased will be entitled for compensation under the head of loss of estate which will include the expenditure of medicines, treatment, diet, attendant, fee of doctor as also income and future prospects. 11. In the aforementioned facts of the case and in the light of above decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kahlon (supra), the objection raised on behalf of respondent No.3 that legal heir of deceased injured claimant cannot seek enhancement of amount of compensation is not sustainable and it is repelled. 6 12. The Claims Tribunal has assessed income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month considering salary certificate exhibited before it as Ex.D-1 and proved by PW-1. In the certificate the post on which injured claimant was working is mentioned as Prerak. Accident is dated 8.12.2016. Claimant on the date of accident was a married person and he was survived by his wife. One cannot presume that two people can survive with income of Rs.2,000/- per month. There is no evidence to suggest that the post on which injured claimant was working was a full time job or what was the nature of his work. It is not the salary paid but it is mentioned as honorarium which shows that injured claimant on the date of accident was not in the regular employment with Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh. When injured claimant was married, he definitely requires fund for survival and therefore he might be managing the same from other sources of income. 13. For the aforementioned reason and considering the object of the Act of 1988 that injured or legal heirs of deceased to be awarded just and fair compensation and further considering other factors like price index, cost of living etc., I am of the view that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of deceased injured as Rs.2,000/- per month. To achieve the object of the Act of 1988, to award just compensation, I find it 7 appropriate to assess income of injured claimant on the date of accident on notional basis. Considering the Notification issued by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the period from 1.4.2016 to 30.9.2016 wherein wage rate fixed for semi-skilled worker was Rs.6,289/-, I find it appropriate to fix income of injured claimant at Rs.6,289/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. 14. Looking to the age of injured claimant on the date of accident, which was 28 years, and in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sidram vs. The Divisional Manager, United Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439 wherein it was held that even in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor-accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future prospects as well, it is held that there shall be addition of 40% of the assessed income of injured claimant towards loss of future prospects. 15. This Court is considering the award of compensation in injury case where injured claimant suffered permanent disability. The Claims Tribunal assessed loss of earning capacity as 100%, which in the opinion of this Court is not correct. As per Schedule under the Employees’ Compensation Act, loss of leg below hip would result in 70% loss of earning capacity. Hence, it is held that injured claimant suffered loss of earning 8 capacity to the extent of 70%. 16. As the deceased was 28 years of age at the time of accident i.e. falling in the age group of 25 to 30, therefore, as per decision in case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, multiplier of 17 would be applicable. It is ordered accordingly. 17. Perusal of the impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards attendant, special diet and conveyance. Looking to the nature of injury suffered by injured claimant i.e. amputation of right leg above knee, I find it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.18,000/- towards attendant; Rs.10,000/- towards special diet and Rs.10,000/- for conveyance expenses. It is ordered accordingly. 18. In view of above, the compensation payable under the head ‘loss of future income’ is to be recomputed. 19. Accordingly, income of injured claimant (now deceased) is taken as Rs.6,289/- and after adding 40% of the assessed income, total income comes to Rs.8,805/- and annual income comes to Rs.1,05,660/-. By applying multiplier of 17, total amount of compensation would come to Rs.17,96,220/-. As held above, that injured claimant has suffered 70% loss of earning capacity, the loss of future income suffered by 9 applicant would come to Rs.12,57,354/- (17,96,220 x 70%). It is ordered accordingly. Appellant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.18,000/- towards attendant; Rs.10,000/- for special diet and Rs.10,000/- for conveyance expenses. Apart from this, the appellant will also be entitled for 50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.2,580/- towards medical expenses, as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 20. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part and it is directed that now appellant herein will be entitled for a sum of Rs.13,47,934/- (12,57,354 + 18,000 +10,000 + 10,000 + 50,000 + 2580) as compensation instead of Rs.4,60,580/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. This amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of application till actual payment is made. Any amount disbursed pursuant to impugned award will be adjusted. 21.The impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/ SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI