1 2025:CGHC:53290 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 12 of 2024 Ramakant Chandrakar S/o Late Laxminarayan Aged About 52 Years Caste - Kurmi, R/o Vande Mataram Ward No. 15 Sanjay Nagar Teacher Colony Kurud, Tahsil- Kurud, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Gulabram Nishad S/o Hailal Nishad Aged About 38 Years R/o Village- Lader Post Borsi, Tahsil- Magarlod, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ajay Kumar Nishad S/o Jhamuram Nishad Aged About 25 Years R/o Village- Lader Post Borsi, Tahsil- Magarlod, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 3 - Khoman Ram Sahu S/o Alakhram Sahu R/o Leela Chowk- Gangrel, Post- Rudri, Tahsil- Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 4 - Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Limited. 1st Floor, Near- Indian Bank Tikarapara Chowk Baster Road- Dhamtari, Tahsil- Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 31/10/2025 Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 1. The appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation against award passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Circuit Court, Kurud, District Dhamtari, in Claim Case No. 146/2021, whereby, the learned Tribunal granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,47,686/- with interest @ 6% per annum on account of injury sustained by the claimant. 2. Mr. Singroul, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that on 18.02.2021, the claimant who is a practicing Lawyer at District and Sessions Court, Dhamtari, was returning home from Court, the driver of the motorcycle Avenger (CG-05-AB-7830), by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of the claimant, consequently, he sustained injuries over knee of right leg, face and jaw. He was admitted in District Hospital Dhamtari thereafter, he was referred to Narayana Hospital, Raipur and V. Y. Hospital, Raipur. He was a practicing Lawyer and earning Rs. 1,50,000/- per month. It is also pleaded that Rs. 1,00,000 was spent in his treatment and Rs. 15,000 was spent on repairing of his motorcycle. He filed claim case and claimed Rs.9,85,000/-. The Insurance Company, & Driver and owner of the offending vehicle filed reply and denied the averments made in claim case. The learned Tribunal framed issues and passed award. 3. Mr. Singroul would further submit that the claimant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 25 % on account of injury sustained by him over right leg. He would contend that AW/2- Dr. Y. K. 3 Pandey, who was member of the Medical Board has proved disability certificate Ex.P/20. He contend that the learned Tribunal has considered functional disability 12 %, whereas the claimant is unable to practice his profession, therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the disability 100%. He would also contend that the learned Tribunal has awarded meager amount on conventional heads. He would pray to enhance the compensation. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Swati Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4/Insurance company would argue that the learned Tribunal has assessed the just and proper compensation. The claimant failed to lead evidence to demonstrate that on account of injury sustained in accident, he is unable to practice his profession, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the functional disability at 12 %. She would contend that on conventional heads, the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation; thus, she would pray that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard. 6. Perusal of the record would show that the learned Tribunal has honored medical bills submitted by the claimant to the tune of Rs. 64,214/-, but the Tribunal did not honored the medical bills which were issued in the name of wife of the claimant and on the name of some other persons, which appears to be proper. 4 7. With regard to permanent disability, AW/2- Y. K. Pandey found permanent disability to the extent of 25 %. Claimant was practicing Lawyer and it is not established that after accident, he is not in position to practice his profession, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the functional disability 12 % and computed compensation accordingly. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.600/- for attendant; Rs. 10,000/- for special diet; Rs. 10,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs. 50,000/- for loss of income, Rs. 10,000/- for pain and suffering, and Rs.15,000/- for loss of amenities. The compensation awarded for attendant and pain and suffering and amenities appears to be at lower side and requires reconsideration. 8. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case, nature of the profession of the claimant, the compensation for attendance is enhanced from Rs. 600 to 10,000/-; for pain and suffering, the claimant would be entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.15,000. Towards loss of amenities from Rs.30,000/-; thus, the compensation is recomputed as under:- Sr. No. headss Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Treatment 64,214/- 64,214/- 2. Attendant 600/- Rs. 10,000/- 3. Special diet Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- 4. Transportation Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- 5 5. Loss of Income Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 50,000/- 6. Loss of Future Income Rs.4,87,872/- Rs.4,87,872/- 7. Pain and suffering 10,000/- 15,000/- 8. Loss of amenities Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 30,000/- TOTAL Rs.6,47,686/- Rs.6,77,086/- 9. In view of the above calculation, the claimant would be entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.6,77,086/-. Since, the learned Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 6,47,686/-, the appellant is held entitled for additional compensation of Rs. Rs.29,400/-. The insurance company is directed to pay enhanced compensation i.e. Rs.29,400/- with interest @ 6 % to the appellant /claimant within a period of 60 days, failing which, the amount shall carry penal interest @ 18 % per annum. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim