1 2025:CGHC:61596 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1216 of 2018 1 - Vijay Kumar Kewart S/o Shri Malik Ram Kewart, Aged About 30 Years R/o - Ek Jhopadi Qtr. No. 169/5, Wrs Colony, Raipur Chhattisgarh, Permanent R/o Near Shiv Mandir , Before Gurudwara Sirgitti, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Govind Ram Sahu S/o Shri Patiram Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Near Kali Mandir, Near Om Sai Mobile Shop, Tifra, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ( Driver And Owner Of Vehicle Swaraj Mazda Metadoor No. Cg 10 C 8046), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - I C I C I Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Through The In Charge Officer, I C I C I Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Commercial Complex, Devendra Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer Of Vehicle Swaraj Mazda Metadoor No. Cg 10 C 8046), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. C. K. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad 2 Order on Board 17/12/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant/claimant for enhancement against the award dated 09.05.2018 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 62/2017 whereby compensation of Rs. 4,80,891/- with interest @ 9% per annum, in favour of the appellant/claimant has been awarded. 2. Brief facts of the case :- It is an admitted position that Respondent No. 2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle, while Respondent No. 1 is its owner-cum-driver. The Appellant/Claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the learned Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs. 71,50,000/- for grievous injuries sustained on various parts of his body, resulting in permanent disability. As per the prosecution case, on 20.06.2016 between 12:00 midnight and 1:00 a.m., the appellant, while travelling on motorcycle bearing Registration No. CG-04-KR-6950 from Bilaspur to Raipur along with his nephew Shrawan @ Baniya, reached near Village Kapasda, close to Fortune Factory on the Raipur–Bilaspur Road, when the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. CG-10-C-8046, driven rashly, negligently and carelessly while attempting to overtake, violently dashed against the appellant’s motorcycle, causing him to sustain 3 grievous injuries on his face, chest, waist, head and mouth, besides fracture of the right leg below the knee into two pieces. 3. The appellant was immediately shifted to Mekahara Hospital, where he remained hospitalized from 20.06.2016 to 16.07.2016 and again from 04.11.2016 to 22.11.2016, during which period his leg was surgically operated upon with insertion of a rod, resulting in permanent disability. Respondent No. 1, in his written statement, denied the allegations and contended that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the appellant, who was allegedly driving the motorcycle in a drunken condition, carrying triple riders, without a valid and effective driving licence, and lost control of the vehicle on his own; he further pleaded that his vehicle was duly insured with Respondent No. 2 and driven under a valid licence, and therefore he was not liable. Respondent No. 2–Insurance Company also denied the claim, raising objections regarding absence of a valid driving licence with the appellant, non-joinder of necessary parties, contributory negligence, and alleged violation of policy conditions, and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. Upon consideration of the pleadings, evidence and arguments of the parties, the learned Claims Tribunal, by award dated 09.05.2018, granted compensation of Rs. 4,80,891/-. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the inadequacy of the said award, the appellant has preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 4 4. The tribunal at the point of disability the 40% disability is considered, and the total income is ₹5,000/-, then the loss of monthly income is considered to be 40% of ₹5,000/-, which is ₹2,000/-. For the calculation of annual income loss, this amounts to ₹2,000 × 12 = ₹24,000/-, and when multiplied by a factor of 17, the total compensation is considered to be ₹4,08,000/- and has awarded sum of Rs. 22,891/- towards medical expenses, Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income during admission in hospital, Rs.5,000/- towards special diet and Rs.10,000/- towards transportation in other heads. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 4,80,891/- has been awarded in favor of the appellant/claimant. 5. The appellant respectfully submits that the impugned award is partly erroneous in law as well as on facts available on record and, therefore, warrants modification by this Hon’ble Court. It is contended that the learned Claims Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence adduced by the appellant, who duly examined witnesses and successfully proved his case, whereas the respondents neither led any cogent evidence nor rebutted the appellant’s evidence, yet the claim was not decreed in its entirety. The Tribunal further erred in inadequately assessing and awarding compensation without due regard to the nature and gravity of the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident, particularly overlooking the medical evidence and the opinion of the Medical Board certifying 100% permanent disability, and instead 5 unsustainably restricting the assessment to only 40% disability. The learned Tribunal also failed to correctly determine the income of the appellant, who was engaged as an electrician earning Rs. 10,000/- per month, and illegally assessed his income at a meagre Rs. 2,000/- per month. Moreover, the Tribunal did not consider the long-term impact of permanent disability on the appellant’s future enjoyment of life, earning capacity and prospects, nor did it properly account for the substantial medical expenses incurred for treatment of multiple fractures and bodily injuries. The judgments relied upon by the appellant in support of assessment of compensation for 100% permanent disability were overlooked, rendering the award legally unsustainable and grossly inadequate. In these circumstances, the appellant prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to suitably modify and enhance the impugned award, granting just and fair compensation along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the original claim petition, together with costs, in the interest of justice. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the same. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of 6 the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 9. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hare Krushna Mahanta vs. Himadari Sahu & Another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 262 has observed as under:- “9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is borne from the record that the Claimant-Appellant had agreed on the additional consolidated sum granted by the High Court. It is imperative for this Court, however, to reiterate that despite such consent, the objective when granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is to ensure just and fair compensation is paid to the aggrieved party. This came to be reiterated by this Court recently in Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto reported in (2023) 1 SCC 204, wherein it was observed:” "17. The Tribunal/Court ought to award "just" compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the claim petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount." 7 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and upon finding that the Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the claimant at Rs. 5,000/-, this Court deems it just and proper to reassess the monthly income at Rs. 6,107/-. Taking 40% thereof towards loss of earning capacity, the monthly loss of income works out to Rs. 2,443/-. The annual loss of income thus comes to Rs. 29,316/- (Rs. 2,443 × 12), which, when multiplied by the appropriate multiplier of 17, results in a total compensation of Rs. 4,98,372/- under the head of loss of future income. In addition, the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- towards special diet, Rs. 5,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering, and Rs. 50,000/- towards future medical treatment. Accordingly, the award stands modified to the following extent:- Sn. Heads Calculation 01 Monthly Income Rs.6,107/- 02 Loss of earning capacity (40%) Rs.2,443/- 03 Annual Loss of Income Rs.29,316/- 04 Multiplier 17 Rs.29,316 x 17 = Rs.4,98,372/- 05 Medical Expenses Rs.22,861/- 06 Pain and Suffering Rs.50,000/- 07 Loss During Admission Rs.10,000/- 08 Special Diet Rs.10,000/- 09 For Transportation Rs.10,000/- 10 For Future Treatment Rs.50,000/- Total Rs.6,51,233/- 12. The amount of compensation of Rs.4,80,891/- awarded by the 8 tribunal is enhanced to Rs.6,51,233/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.4,80,891/-, the claimant is held entitled for an enhanced amount of Rs.1,70,342/-, the additional amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of appeal within the period of 60 days. Rest of the terms and conditions of the Tribunal award remain intact. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena