1 2025:CGHC:54645 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2092 of 2019 1 - Gulab Singh Patel S/o Late Shri Maheshwari Prasad Patel Aged About 40 Years Legal Representative Of Late Maheshwari Prasad Patel, R/o Near Mukund Bhawan, Baijnathpara, New Vijay Nagar, Ward No.39, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Legal Representative Of Late Mr. Maheshwari Prasad Patel., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Ajay Kumar S/o Chowaram Aged About 28 Years R/o Village And Post Nardha, Police Station Jamul, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Alto Car Vehicle No. C.G. - 07a.S. 8136), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chowaram S/o Dashramaged Aged About 62 Years R/o Village And Post Nardha, Police Station Jamul, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Alto Car Vehicle No. C.G. - 07a.S. 8136), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Office At 1215, 12th Floor, Navrang House, 21 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001, Through Division Manager, Chouhan Estate, Infront Of Maurya Talkies, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.(Insurerer Company Of The Alto Car Vehicle No. C.G. - 07a.S. 8136) ... Respondent(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Shri Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Shri Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board NIRMALA RAO 2 10.11.2025 1. The appellant, who is legal representative of original claimant/ injured Maheshwari Prasad Patel has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement of compensation against the award dated 10.4.2019, passed in Claim Case No.218 of 2018 by the learned Seventh Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District Durg whereby the learned Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs.3,01,950/- and directed the Insurance Company to make payment with interest @ 9% per annum on account of injuries sustained by Maheshwari Prasad Patel. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that on 2.1.2018 at about 5:30 pm, Maheshwari Prasad Patel was dashed by an Alto Car bearing registration No.C.G. 07 AS 8136, resultantly, he sustained injuries over his legs and other parts of the body including a fracture in his left leg. He would contend that he remained hospitalized from 3.1.2018 to 8.1.2018. He would further submit that at the time of accident, the age of Maheshwari Prasad Patel was 80 years and he was earning Rs.15,000 – 20,000/- per month. He would contend that there was a fracture of tibia and fibula bones of right leg, resulting in a permanent disability of 7%. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has assessed the permanent disability to the extent of 25% but considered the notional monthly income at a lower side i.e. Rs.7,500/-. He would further submit that though the learned Tribunal has assessed the permanent disability at 25% and awarded compensation accordingly but committed error of law by applying multiplier of 1 instead of 5. He would submit that the Motor Vehicles Act does not 3 provide for a multiplier of 1 and considering the age of the injured, the learned Tribunal should have applied a multiplier of 5. It was further contended that the learned Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount under the other conventional heads. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellant. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. He would further submit that as the original claimant has expired, therefore, the appeal preferred by his legal representative would not be maintainable. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection. 5. With regard to contention made by counsel for the appellant, regarding maintainability of this appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Kahlon alias Jasmail Singh Kahlon (deceased) through his legal representative Narinder Kahlon Gosakan and Another, reported in (2022) 13 SCC 494 held that the legal heirs and legal representatives would have also suffered considerable mental pain and agony due to the accident caused to their kith and kin. Possibly they might have looked their dear ones in different circumstances, which cannot be measurable in monetary terms. It is further held that the claim for personal injuries may not survive after the death of the injured unrelated to the accident or injuries, during the pendency of the appeal, but the claims for loss of estate caused was available to and could be pursued by the legal representatives of the deceased in the appeal. 4 6. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kahlon (supra), the contention made by counsel for respondent No.3 cannot be accepted and hereby rejected. Resultantly, this appeal is held maintainable at the instance of the legal representative of the deceased injured. 7. In the present case, learned Tribunal considered the disability to the extent of 25% and assessed the compensation accordingly. The learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the injured Rs.7,500/- which appears to be proper considering the minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer at relevant period. Learned Tribunal has further granted compensation according to the percentage of disability i.e. 25%, which is also proper. Learned Tribunal committed an error of law while applying a multiplier of 1, which is not contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act. The minimum applicable multiplier is 5, which would be appropriate for the computation of compensation in this case. Under the other conventional heads, the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation, therefore, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the findings. 8. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal requires recomputation and same is revisited herein below: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Monthly Income Rs. 7,500/- Rs. 7,500/- 2. Loss of earning due to disability (25%) (1,875/-) (25%) (1,875/-) 3. Income (Yearly) 1,875 x 12 = 22,500/- 1,875 x 12 = 22,500/- 4. Multiplier (x) 1 = Rs. (22,500 x (x) 5 = Rs. (22,500 x 5 = 1,12,500/-) 5 1= 22,500/-) 5. Medical Expenses Rs.1,33,650/- Rs.1,33,650/- 6. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- 7. Special Diet Rs.25,800/- Rs. 25,800/- 8. Transportation Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- 9. Attendant Rs.78,000/- Rs. 78,000/- 10. Future medical expenses Rs. 17,000/- Rs. 17,000/- TOTAL Rs. 3,01,950/- Rs. 3,91,950/- 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.3,01,950/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,91,950/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.3,01,950/-, the appellants/claimants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs.90,000/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 10. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi