1 2025:CGHC:59588 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1664 of 2017 1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Aged About 18 Years Branch Office Rahul Complex 3rd Floor Jindal Road Raigarh Jagatpur In The Mead Of Axis Bank Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh Through Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Division Office Rama Trade Center Opposite Rajiv Plaza Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Insurer, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Minor Shivangi Pandey @ Piu D/o Ajay Pandey Age 15 Months R/o Champa, P. S. And Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. Through Her Father Natural Guardian Ajay Pandey Claiment, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kishan Rajput S/o Lal Bahadur Singh Aged About 23 Years Occupation Driver R/o Godam, Thana Tahsil Sarangarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh Driver , District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Kamla Chouhan W/o Late Narsingh Chouhan R/o Banjari, P. S. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 And Tehsil Sarangarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh Owner , District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : Mr. Ashwani Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 & 3 : None. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 08/12/2025 1. The present is Insurance Company’s appeal assailing the award dated 31.8.2017 passed by the learned Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sarangarh, District-Raigharh (C.G.) in MACT No. 17/2016, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 7,90,200/- with interest @ 6% per annum in favour of claimant/respondent No. 1 herein. 2. The claimant i.e. respondent No. 1 represented by Mr. Ashwani Shukla, Advocate have also filed a cross-objection seeking for enhancement of compensation. 3. 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 respondents/claimants seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant. The case of the claimants is that on 06.06.2015, the claimant, along with her parents, was returning from Bilaspur to Sarangarh in a Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. CG-13-U-0811, and when they reached near 3 Churela, the driver lost control of the vehicle and dashed it against a tree, resulting in the claimant sustaining grievous injuries to her head and both eyes. Thereafter, she was immediately taken to Government Hospital, Sarangarh, for primary treatment and, on the advice of the doctors, was shifted to Metro Hospital, Raigarh, for better treatment, where she was treated by various hospitals and doctors. As a result of the injuries, the claimant allegedly suffered 80% permanent disability and sought compensation of Rs. 15,50,000/- under various heads. The non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 filed their replies denying all adverse averments and contended that the driver of the vehicle was not negligent. Permission under Section 170 of the Act was granted by the Tribunal. The present appellant–insurance company also filed its reply controverting the averments made in the claim application, specifically pleading that on the date of the accident the driver (respondent No. 1) did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and that the owner had plied the vehicle without a valid permit and fitness certificate, in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is pertinent to note that the claimant was an infant aged about 15 months and entirely dependent upon her parents; however, the learned Tribunal assessed her notional income at Rs. 3,000/- per month and applied a multiplier for assessing loss of income without making permissible deductions. It is further contended that the treating doctor was not examined, yet the Tribunal assessed the disability 4 at 80% without ascertaining whether the disability certificate pertained to the whole body or to a particular part and treated it as total permanent disability. The learned Tribunal, without properly appreciating the facts, documents, and evidence on record, fastened liability upon the appellant on a higher side, giving rise to the present appeal on the grounds stated, without prejudice to one another. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the impugned order/award passed by the learned Tribunal is bad in law as well as on facts and suffers from serious infirmities. It is contended that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that AW-2 is not the treating doctor and had merely issued a disability certificate; in the absence of examination of the treating doctor, the medical bills and future medical expenses could not have been properly assessed, and therefore the award of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards future medical expenses is unsustainable. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal committed grave illegality in taking the notional income at Rs. 3,000/- per month and applying a multiplier of 15 in the case of a 15-month-old infant child, who admittedly was dependent upon her parents, thereby resulting in an excessive and bonanza-like award. The learned Tribunal also erred in not deducting one-third towards personal expenses while assessing compensation. It is further argued that the learned Tribunal illegally assessed 100% loss of earning capacity on conjectures and surmises, contrary to the disability 5 certificate produced by the claimants, which itself does not clarify whether the disability is of the whole body or of a particular limb, nor does it specify the actual extent of disability. The learned Tribunal also failed to properly appreciate the criminal case documents, which do not disclose registration of any offence for causing grievous injury. Additionally, it is submitted that at the time of the accident more than eight persons were travelling in the offending vehicle, far in excess of the registered seating capacity, amounting to a wilful violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Lastly, the appellant craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to raise additional grounds as may be available during the course of further proceedings. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for claimant/respondent No. 1 submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,90,152/- 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 awarded amount needs to be enhanced suitably. 6. None for respondents No. 2 & 3 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6 8. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and on a careful perusal of the impugned award and the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is warranted in the well-reasoned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal. The accident, the injuries sustained by the claimant, and the resultant permanent disability stand duly proved by the evidence on record. The Tribunal has taken a just, fair, and reasonable view while assessing the nature of injuries, the extent of disability, and the compensation payable, keeping in view the age of the claimant and the facts and circumstances of the case. The contentions raised by the appellant–insurance company with regard to assessment of disability, future medical expenses, notional income, and alleged violation of policy conditions do not merit acceptance, as no cogent evidence has been brought on record to substantiate the same. The compensation awarded cannot be said to be excessive or perverse so as to call for interference by this Court in appellate jurisdiction. 9. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant–insurance company is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Cross-objection/Appeal 10. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,40,000/- towards loss of income, Rs. 2,00,000/- towards future medical expenses, Rs. 10,152/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 40,000/- towards nutrition food & transportation. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 7 7,90,152/- has been awarded in favor of the claimant/respondent No. 1 herein. 11. Learned counsel for claimant/respondent No. 1 submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,90,152/- 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 awarded amount needs to be enhanced suitably. He has placed reliance upon the judgments passed in the matters of Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413, Master Ayush vs. Branch Manager Reliance Insurance Company Limited and Another, reported in (2022) 7 SCC 738, Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmaed Simon & Another reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 3692 and Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel vs. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Another reported in 2025 Live Law (SC) 871. 12. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for appellant/insurance company submits that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 14. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the 8 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. 15. 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. 16. 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." 9 17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of amenities are hereby enhanced. 18. In the result, the cross appeal is partly allowed. The claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- 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 rest of the conditions shall remain intact. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat