-1- 2025:CGHC:21280 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 319 of 2020 Omprakash Yadav S/o Kapil Yadav Aged About 18 Years Resident Of Village- Chhote Tumnar Kotwar Para Police Station Geedam District South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Mohd. Sagir S/o Mohd. Ibrahim Aged About 35 Years Resident Of P.G.A. Construction Village Sargipal Tusel Near Primary School Police Station Parpa District Bastar Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Vehicle) 2 - M/s P.S.A. Construction Through Sanjay Singhal S/o Premchand Singhal Aged About 45 Years Resident Of House No. B-24 Chobey Colony Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Vehicle) 3 - The Branch Manager The United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Anupam Talkies Chowk Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh (Insurer) ... Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Praveen Kumar Dhurandhar, Advocate For Resp. No.2 : Mr. Sourabh Sonwani Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Resp. No.3 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate _______________________________________________________ SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY -2- S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 08/05/2025 1. Notice sent to respondent No.1 was returned un-served with a note “not residing in given address” 2. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the liability to satisfy the award is upon non-applicants jointly and severally and the first liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon respondent No.3/Insurance Company. Liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is not disputed by learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/Insurance Company. 3. In the aforementioned facts of the case, service of notice upon respondent No.1 is dispensed with. 4. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally. 5. This is the claimant’s appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur (CG) vide award dated 30.11.2019 passed in Claim Case No.22 of 2019. 6. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that applicant/claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the learned Second Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, pleading therein that he was working as a conductor/cleaner in the Tipper vehicle CG 04 JD/6207. On 05.12.2017 at about 11.30 am, he was going towards Darbha after loading iron ore from Kodenar -3- Crusher Plant. On the way, driver of the truck No. CG 04 HR/3580, to attend the nature’s call, had parked the truck on the road near the village Mavalibhata Hadma bridge . At that time Sagir Mohammad (non-applicant No.1), driving the Tipper truck CG 04 JD/6207 (offending vehicle) rashly and carelessly, dashed against the parked truck CG 04 HR/3580 from behind due to which the cabin of the Tipper truck CG 04 JD/6207 was badly damaged. The applicant was sitting in the cabin and suffered fatal injuries all over his body. It was stated in the application that he was a healthy person of 18 years of age. He was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month while working as a conductor/cleaner. After the accident, his left leg was amputated on account of motor accidental injury, due to which he has become permanently disabled and is unable to do his daily routine work. He had to hire an assistant. The applicant has submitted a claim for compensation of Rs. 35,29,000/- from non- applicants. 7. Non-applicant No.1 in his written statement has specifically denied pleadings made in the claim application and has specifically stated that, he was driving the vehicle at normal speed and the vehicle in front was standing in the middle of the road without indication and his eyes were dazzled by the light of the vehicle coming from the front. On the date of the accident, the driver/non-applicant-1 had a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle. The said vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3/ insurance company, hence, non-applicant No.3/ insurance company is liable to pay compensation, if any. -4- 8. Non-applicant No.2 has been proceeded ex-parte in the claim proceedings, no reply has been filed on his behalf. 9. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed its written statement denying all the pleadings made in the claim application and specifically stated that the applicant was not working as a conductor/cleaner on the date of the accident but was travelling as a free passenger. The insurance policy has been taken for carrying own luggage and not for commercial purpose. The driver did not have a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident, hence, non-applicant No.3 is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 10. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of incident, the offending vehicle was being driven by non- applicant No.1 rashly and negligently due to which an accident occurred in which applicant/claimant suffered serious injury resulting in his permanent disability. Recording a finding that breach of the conditions of insurance policy was not found proved, learned Claims Tribunal held non-applicants liable to pay amount of compensation to claimant. Assessing monthly income of the applicant/claimant as Rs.5000/- and calculating the loss suffered by the claimants under different heads, awarded total amount of compensation of Rs.7,03,000/ -. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants raises a short point for enhancement of the amount of compensation, that while -5- considering the income of the claimant who was stated to be working as Conductor/Cleaner in the offending vehicle, learned Claims Tribunal erred in not considering the date of accident and wages prevailing on the date of accident as prescribed under Minimum Wages Act. He submits that learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded sufficient amount under the heads- medical expenses, expenses towards future medical treatment, pain and suffering and special diet. He submits that looking the permanent disability suffered by the applicant to the extent of 60%, which will have an adverse impact on his future life, learned Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation under the head ‘loss towards future prospect’. He prays for enhancement of the amount of compensation suitably. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and submits that the amount of compensation awarded is just and proper in the facts of the case and it does not call for any interference. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. 14. There is no challenge to the finding recorded by Tribunal that non- applicant No.1 is the driver of offending vehicle, which caused the accident, the owner of the offending vehicle is non-applicant No. 2 and the insurer of said vehicle is non-applicant No. 3. 15. So far as the ground raised by learned counsel for the appellant/claimant with regard to assessing monthly income of -6- claimant is concerned, even if claimant failed to establish nature of occupation and income then also he is to be treated as Labourer and his income is to be assessed considering the wages prevailing, price index, cost of living or as per the minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 16. For the purpose of assessing income of claimant on notional basis in absence of any specific evidence, this Court finds it appropriate to take help of the Notification issued by the Commissioner-cum- Competent Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. In the Notification for ‘Class-C zone/area’ for ‘unskilled labourer’, monthly income has been prescribed as Rs.7,800/- per month. In absence of admissible piece of evidence of occupation and income of claimant, on the date of accident, if the claimant is to be treated as Labourer, his income should not have been less than Rs.7,800/- per month (minimum wages fixed by competent authority), hence, the income of the claimant as pleaded in claim application cannot be said to be of higher side and it is assessed as Rs.6,000 per month instead of Rs.5000/- per month as held by learned Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. 17. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the applicant with regard to award of compensation under the head “future prospects” is concerned, in the opinion of this Court, there shall enhancement of 40% in the assessed income of the claimant towards ‘loss of future prospects’ as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680. It is ordered accordingly. -7- 18. Appellant/claimant has to live his entire life ahead with the current disability. He cannot enjoy his social life like an ordinary man and, therefore, I find it appropriate to award Rs.40,000/- towards ‘loss of amenities of life’. It is ordered accordingly. Further, looking to the fact that the applicant is a labourer, he might have suffered loss of income during the period taken in his treatment, he is also entitled for grant of compensation under the head ‘loss of income’ of four months i.e. Rs.24,000/- (6000 x 4). It is ordered accordingly. 19. Learned Claims Tribunal considering the age of applicant/claimant to be 18 years, disability certificate (Ex.A-1) produced by claimant on record, awarded an amount of Rs.6,48,000/- towards ‘loss suffered due to disability’; Rs.15,000/- towards ‘medical expenses’, Rs.10,000/- towards ‘future treatment expenses’ which in the opinion of this Court does not warrant any interference. However, looking to the nature of disability suffered by the applicant, I am inclined to award Rs.40,000/- under the head ‘physical and mental pain/agony’ and Rs.20,000/- towards ‘special diet’. Applicant/claimant is also entitled for compensation of Rs.10,000/- under the head ‘transportation charges’. It is ordered accordingly. 20. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I find it appropriate to re- compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. Compensation based on disability suffered by applicant A. 6000 x 12= 72000 B. 72000 x 40% = 28,800 C. (72000+28800) X 18 = 1814400 : Rs. 18,14,400/- -8- 2. Appellant suffered 60% of permanent disability, 18,14,400 x 60 %= 10,88,640/- Rs. 10,88,640/- 3. Expenditure incurred towards medical treatment : Rs. 15,000/- 4. Expenses towards future treatment : Rs. 10,000/- 5. Physical and Mental pain/agony : Rs. 40,000/- 6. Special Diet : Rs. 20,000/- 7. Transportation charges : Rs. 10,000/- 8. Loss of amenities of life : Rs. 40,000/- Total compensation : Rs. 12,23,640/- 21. Now the appellant/claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs.12,23,640/- instead of Rs.7,03,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 22. Aforementioned total amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Other conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 23. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein above. Sd/--/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen