1 2025:CGHC:56056 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1847 of 2019  Dinesh Tiwari S/o Late Shri Paras Tiwari Aged About 32 Years R/o House No. L I G 117, Shivaji Nagar, Korba Tahsil And District - Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1. Pradeep Kumar Patel S/o Chhotelal Patel, Aged About 36 Years At Present R/o Village Beltara, Feel Motors Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ( Driver Vehicle ), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. Dinesh Singh S/o Shri Harinath Singh, R/o House No. M 2/1, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Vehicle ), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. New India Insurance Company Ltd., Through Division Manager New India Insurance Company Ltd. Division Office, T. P. Nagar, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer Vehicle ), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. P. Acharya, Advocate For Respondent No.1 and 2 : None, though served For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.11.20 10:26:20 +0530 2 18-11-2025 1) Claimant-appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'Act of 1988') for enhancement of the compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 8.3.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Korba in Claim Case no. 81/2016, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 9,76,131/- with interest @ 7% per annum on account of injuries sustained by the appellant. 2) The case in brief is that on 3.4.2016 at about 9:00 a.m., claimant /appellant herein was going on his motorcycle from Hardi Bazar to Dipka. When he reached near Dipka P.S. Chowki, the offending vehicle–Trailer bearing registration No. CG-12-R-1315 being driven in rash and negligent manner by respondent No. 1 herein dashed the motorcycle. In the accident, claimant sustained serious injuries which resulted in permanent disability to the extent of 61.82%. The claimant remained hospitalized for more than two months and underwent 23 surgeries. 3) Appellant himself had filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- and pleaded that he was working on the post of Supervisor at Sanjay Pradhan Industry, Korba and was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month; Insurance Company filed reply and took a plea that driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving license and claimant has exaggerated the claim amount. Learned Claims 3 Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and thereafter award impugned was passed. 4) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that learned Claims Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs. 7,000/- per month, though sufficient evidence was led by the claimant to prove his monthly income and salary slip (Ex. P/246) was placed on record and its contents have been proved by the employer Mr. Sanjay Pradhan (AW/3) in evidence. He further submits that claimant remained hospitalized for period of two months and underwent 23 surgeries but the learned Claims Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and suffering, which is on lower side. He contends that learned Claims Tribunal committed error of law while awarding compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards transportation and no separate compensation has been awarded towards future medical expenses and loss of marriage prospect. He further contends that learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded loss of earning for the period claimant remained hospitalized, thus compensation requires reconsideration. 5) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3/ Insurance Company opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and submits that the claimant failed to lead cogent evidence to prove his monthly income Rs. 12,000/- per month. He further submits that Sanjay Pradhan (AW/3) 4 failed to submit any register or document to establish the fact that claimant was working in his office. He contends that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal to the claimant cannot be said to be on lower side, rather it is just and proper in the given facts and circumstances of the case and does not call for any interference. 6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, considered their rival submissions and perused the records with utmost circumspection. 7) Admittedly, the claimant has pleaded that he was working on the post of Supervisor in Sanjay Pradhan Industry, Korba earning Rs. 12,000/- per month and in this regard Salary Slip (Ex. P/246) has been placed on record. The employer of the claimant, namely, Sanjay Pradhan (AW/3) has deposed in evidence that claimant was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month but learned Claims Tribunal failed to consider this piece of evidence. 8) The claimant produced sufficient medical documents to establish the fact that he suffered various injuries. Dr. Ghanshyam Diwan (AW/2), in evidence has stated that claimant underwent 23 surgeries and his evidence has not been rebutted by the Insurance Company. Although, learned Claims Tribunal honored the medical bills presented by the claimant incurred during the course of treatment but at the same time, awarded only Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and suffering. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5 10,000/- towards transportation, which appears to be on lower side and requires modification. As the claimant remained hospitalized for considerable period, it can be presumed that during that period he had visited the hospital frequently. The learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards loss of earning for the period claimant remained hospitalized. Further, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 4,65,131/- towards loss of earning on account of permanent disability suffered by the claimant to the extent of 24.07% treating the monthly income of the deceased to Rs. 7,000/-. As the claimant has led cogent evidence to prove his monthly income, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have considered the figure of Rs. 12,000/- per month while assessing the compensation towards loss of earning. Furthermore, learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded separate compensation towards loss of marriage prospects. Thus, the award requires re-consideration under these heads. 9) However, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 18,000/- towards attendant charges ; Rs. 20,000/- for special diet and Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of amenities which appears to be proper and does not require interference. 10) Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion this Court is computing the compensation as below: 6 Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Loss of earning (on account of disability to the extent of 24.72%) Rs. 4,65,131/- (according to Rs. 7,000/- p.m.) Rs. 7,97,368/- (according to Rs. 12,000/- p.m.) 2. Future Medical Expenses NIL Rs. 50,000/- 3. Medical bills Rs. 4,23,000/- Rs. 4,23,000/- 4. Loss of amenities Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 20,000/- 5. Pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 40,000/- 6. Special Diet Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 20,000/- 7. Attendant Rs. 18,000/- Rs. 18,000/- 8. Transportation Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 20,000/- 9. Loss of Marriage prospects NIL Rs. 1,00,000/- 10. Loss of Income for period of two months (period of hospitalization) NIL Rs. 24,000/- TOTAL Rs. 9,76,131/- Rs. 15,12,368/- 11) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.9,76,131/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.15,12,368/-. Hence, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 5,36,237/-. The Insurance Company is directed to make payment of additional compensation assessed herein-above within period of 60 days with interest @ 7% p.a. from date of application till its 7 realization. 12)Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a