1 2025:CGHC:59087 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 513 of 2021 Iswar Prasad S/o Jagdev Prasad Kurre Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Main Road, Palari, Police Station Palari, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Khilawan Alias Golu S/o Lalaram Tandan Aged About 18 Years R/o Near Stadium Palari, Police Station Palari, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Tractor No. C.G. 06 E 6482)., District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Tijram S/o Phoolsingh Sinha Aged About 59 Years R/o Main Road, Palari, Police Station Palari, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Tractor No. C.G. 06 E 6482)., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Ambedkar Square, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Tractor No. C.G. 06 E 6482). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Ms. Pooja Yadav, Advocate, on behalf of Ms. Supriya Upasane, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Md. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 05/12/2025 1. The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation, challenging the validity and propriety of the award Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 dated 30.06.2021 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar in Claim Case No.149/2019, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,44,157/- with interest @ 9% per annum, on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant with a stipulation that the amount shall first be satisfied by the insurance company with liberty to recover it from the owner and driver. 2. Shri Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that on 09.11.2016 at about 7:30 p.m., the driver of the offending tractor bearing registration No. CG-06-E-6482, while driving it rashly and negligently, dashed the claimant, resultantly, he sustained injuries on his both legs. The claimant sustained fracture at the sole of the left leg, and the right leg’s ankle had to be amputated. He would further submit that the claimant was initially admitted to the Community Health Centre, Palari and thereafter referred to Raipur, where he remained hospitalized for one and a half month. 3. Mr. Mishra would contend that a disability certificate to the extent of 50% permanent disability, issued by the District Medical Board, has duly been proved by Dr. Wasim Raza (PW-2), an orthopedic specialist who was member of the Medical Board. The certificate has been exhibited as Ex. P-94/C. Despite this, the learned Tribunal failed to properly consider the disability certificate while computing compensation and awarded inadequate amounts under various heads, including pain and suffering. It is further argued that the learned Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount towards loss of marriage prospects and special diet; thus, he prays for enhancement of the compensation. 4. Ms. Pooja Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Mishra and submit that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal was just and proper. She would further submit that the claimant is a Government 3 servant working as a Radiographer in the District Hospital, Balodabazar and he has not suffered loss of income; therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly not awarded compensation under that head. She prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. From a perusal of the medical certificate (Ex. P-94/C), it is apparent that the petitioner suffered 50% permanent disability, which has been proved by Dr. Wasim Raja (AW-2), who was member of the District Medical Board. In his deposition, he stated that the claimant can work using crutches or an artificial limb; thus, the disability is permanent. 7. With regard to finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that there is no loss of income appears to be erroneous, as the claimant suffered loss of earning capacity due to functional disability; thus, in the opinion of this Court, considering the amputation of the right leg’s ankle, the functional disability is assessed at 20%. 8. The claimant was earning Rs. 43,000 per month and his age was 26 years at the time of accident, therefore, it would be appropriate to compute compensation for loss of income due to disability. The learned Tribunal also failed to award compensation towards loss of marriage prospects, as at the time of the accident, the claimant was unmarried and due to disability, his marital prospects got reduced; hence, compensation under this head deserves to be awarded; further, the amount of Rs. 20,000 awarded for pain and suffering is also inadequate and requires enhancement. 9. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is recomputed as under: S. No. Head of Compensation Awarded by the learned Tribunal Awarded by this Court 1. Permanent disability Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- 2. Medical Rs.34,157/- Rs.34,157/- 4 S. No. Head of Compensation Awarded by the learned Tribunal Awarded by this Court expenses 3. Pain and suffering Rs.20,000/- Rs.50,000/- 4. Special Diet Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/- 5. Conveyance Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/- 6. Attendant None Rs.10,000/- 7. Conveyance None Rs.10,000/- 8. Marriage Prospect None Rs.1,00,000/- 9. Artificial Limb None Rs.1,00,000/- Total Rs.1,44,157/- Rs. 3,10,000/- Final Compensation Rs. 3,10,000 - 1,44,157 = Rs.1,65,843/- 10.In view of the above calculation, the appellant/claimant is held entitled to an enhanced sum of Rs.1,65,843/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The insurance company is directed to indemnify this amount and thereafter recover the same from the driver and the owner. The claimant shall be at liberty to withdraw the awarded amount in accordance with law. 11.In the present case, the claimant is a government servant drawing a monthly salary of Rs.43,000/-. Though this Court has assessed his functional disability at 20%, but such disability does not reduce his earning capacity and there is no reduction in his income. Consequently, no compensation is granted under the head of loss of earnings to the claimant. 12.Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby allowed in part. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim