1 2025:CGHC:53468 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1304 of 2017 1 - Sardar Harjinder Singh Chawla (Died), Through Legal Heir As Per Hon'ble Court Order Date 22-08-2022. 1.1 - Smt. Harprit Kour Chawala W/o Sardar Harjinder Singh Chawla R/o J.K. D. Road Manendragarh District - Koriya Chhattisgarh. 1.2 - Baldeep Singh Chawla S/o Sardar Harjinder Singh Chawla J.K.D. Road Manendragarh District Koriya Chhattisgarh. 1.3 - Tarandeep Singh Chawla S/o Sardar Harjinder Singh Chawla R/o J.K.D. Road Manendragarh District - Koriya Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Jatinpal Sing S/o Jag Jeet Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Mainroad Dayalbandh Bilaspur Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Owner Cum Driver , Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager Division Office Kachhari Chowk Jailroad Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shashvut Yechuri, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : None. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 31/10/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement against the award dated 18.5.2017 passed by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, District-Koria (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 116/2014 whereby compensation of Rs. 1,36,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum, in favour of the appellant/claimant has been awarded. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was filed by the claimant through his wife, as the claimant had suffered permanent mental and physical disability resulting in complete loss of income due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 23.11.2003. The claimant sought compensation of Rs. 1,65,00,000/- under various heads. As per the case of the claimant, on the said date, Harjinder Singh Chawla was travelling in the offending vehicle, a Tata Sierra bearing registration number MP-09 HB-1981, along with others from Bilaspur to Ambikapur. When the vehicle reached near Kenapa, respondent No. 1, who was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, lost control, causing the vehicle to overturn. As 3 a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries on his head, chest, and abdomen, including fractures of six ribs and damage to the spleen. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to Holy Cross Hospital, Ambikapur, where his spleen was operated upon, and it was found that his pelvic bone was also fractured. On 26.11.2003, he was again admitted to the hospital due to breathing difficulties, where further examination revealed additional rib fractures. During treatment on 27.11.2003 at about 9:30 a.m., the claimant suffered a cardiac arrest and was found to have swelling and blood clots in his chest along with a puncture in his lungs, rendering him unconscious. Subsequently, he was treated at Apollo Hospital, Delhi, from November 2003 to September 2004, incurring substantial medical and transportation expenses, supported by relevant bills. Due to the severe injuries, the claimant suffered permanent total physical and mental disability, resulting in the closure of his business. To substantiate his case, the claimant examined his wife Harpreet Kour Chawla (AW-1), Gurvachan Singh (AW-2), Dr. Shanti Lal Chawda, Civil Surgeon, who issued the disability certificate (AW-3), and Dr. Beatrix, who initially treated the claimant (AW-4). The claimant also produced medical papers, bills, transportation receipts, the disability certificate, income tax returns, and the shop establishment license. Respondent No. 1 filed a reply admitting the occurrence of the accident but denied negligence, alleging that the vehicle had been hit by an unknown vehicle. Respondent 4 No. 2 also filed its reply, denying the allegations and contending that the vehicle was being plied in violation of policy conditions and further disputing that the claimant’s disability was a result of the accident. The learned Tribunal, without properly considering the evidence and documents on record, erroneously held that the claimant had not suffered permanent disability due to the accident and disallowed medical expenses incurred at Apollo Hospital, Delhi, on the ground that no witness from the hospital was examined. The Tribunal further disbelieved that the claimant’s business was closed due to the accident and held that there was no nexus between the disability and the accident, consequently disallowing the claim towards loss of income. The Tribunal only awarded Rs. 36,000/- towards loss of income for one year, Rs. 40,000/- for mental agony, Rs. 40,000/- for loss of enjoyment, and Rs. 20,000/- towards transportation and attendant charges. Hence, the present appeal has been preferred for enhancement of the compensation on various grounds, without prejudice to each other. 3. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 36,000/- towards loss of income for one year, Rs. 40,000/- for mental agony, Rs. 40,000/- for loss of enjoyment and Rs. 20,000/- towards transportation and attendant charges. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 1,36,000/- has been awarded in favor of the appellant/claimant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that on 23.11.2003, 5 Harjinder Singh was travelling in vehicle bearing registration No. MP-09-HB-1981, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the vehicle turned turtle, causing grievous injuries to the claimant on his head, spine, stomach and chest, including fracture of six ribs and damage to the spleen. Immediately after the accident, he was admitted to SECL Hospital, Bishrampur, and later referred to Holy Cross Hospital, Ambikapur, where he was discharged on 30.11.2003. During the course of treatment, on 27.11.2003 at about 9:30 a.m., he suffered a cardiac arrest, and investigations revealed swelling and blood clotting in the chest along with puncture of the lungs. Subsequently, in November 2003, the claimant was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Delhi, where he remained under treatment until September 2004. Due to the injuries sustained, he suffered 100% permanent disability, as proved vide Exhibits P/215 and P/218, and to substantiate the same, Dr. Shantilal Chawda (AW-3), Chairman of the Medical Board and Dr. Patrix (AW-4), who treated the claimant at Holy Cross Hospital, were examined. The claimant remained bedridden from the date of the accident till his death on 12.09.2018, which, according to the claimants, occurred as a consequence of the injuries sustained in the said accident. It is further submitted that Harjinder Singh was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by running a departmental store under the name “Chawla Departmental Store,” which was later closed due to his disability. The claimants have produced medical bills vide Exhibits 6 P/12 to P/214 and income-related documents, and examined AW- 1 and AW-2 to prove the same. It is stated that the earlier claim application filed before the MACT, Raipur, was dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction, and the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, in MAC No. 866/2007, granted liberty to file a fresh claim before a competent forum, leading to the present application before MACT, Manendragarh. The learned Tribunal, however, assessed a notional income of only Rs. 3,000/- per month and awarded Rs. 36,000/- for one year, Rs.40,000/- towards mental harassment, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of enjoyment and Rs.20,000/- towards attendant, transportation and nutritious food. It is contended that the Tribunal has failed to consider medical bills marked as Exhibits P/12 to P/251 and P/262 to P/265 amounting to Rs. 13,52,868/-, as well as other bills dated 25.12.2003 totaling Rs.15,04,999/-, and ignored the income tax records indicating an annual income of Rs.3,78,500/-. Hence, it is submitted that the claimant, having suffered 100% permanent disability and being completely bedridden until his demise, was entitled to full compensation, which the learned Tribunal failed to award. He further submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,36,000/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the awarded compensation by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Therefore, the compensation amount may be enhanced suitably. Hence, this appeal may be allowed and 7 awarded amount needs to be enhanced suitably. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Kahlon reported in (2022) 13 SCC 494. 5. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 2 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. None for respondent No. 1 i.e. owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle. 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 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:- 8 “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." 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 40,000/- towards special diet and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities are hereby enhanced. 12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 3,20,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and 9 rest of the conditions shall remain intact. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat