1 2025:CGHC:4136 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 222 of 2023 Munija Hussaini D/o Ziaul Hussaini Aged About 30 Years R/o Salhewar Para, Near Badi Masjid, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Dikeshwar Dewangan S/o Kartikram Dewangan Aged About 34 Years R/o Bramh Chowk, Mahima Sagar Ward, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 2. Divisional Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Division Office, M.B.Ted Center, Near Ghadi Chowk, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.N. Pusty, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 22/01/2025 (1) The claimant-appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'Act of 1988') for enhancement of the award, challenging the impugned award dated 04.11.2022 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 48/2020, whereby the 2 Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 in part and calculated the total compensation of Rs.1,05,842/- on account of injuries sustained by appellant/Munija Hussaini. (2) The case in brief is that on 20.02.2019 at about 11:00 pm, the appellant was returning to her home from a marriage ceremony on Scooty bearing registration No. CG-05-AA-7865, near Ratnabandha Mission School, Dhamtari, an Indigo Car bearing registration No. CG-05-F-1492 being driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently dashed the Scooty due to which the appellant sustained injuries over her face, hands, wrist and knees and a fracture over the spinal cord. The appellant was aged about 30 years at the time of the accident. (3) The appellant herself has filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking a total compensation of Rs.6,10,000/- pleading therein that on the date of the accident, the appellant was earning Rs. 11,000/- per month and she was working as Bureau Chief in Darshan News Paper, Dhamtari. She has submitted that due to the said accident, she herself and her family have suffered a huge financial loss. (4) Respondent No. 1 filed a reply to the application and denied the averments. It is stated by respondent No. 1/driver that he had a valid Driving License and the vehicle was insured with respondent No. 2/Insurance Company. Respondent No. 2 filed a reply and stated that the appellant fell down from the scooty due to her own mistake/fault. 3 The Learned Claims Tribunal framed issues; the parties led evidence and thereafter, the Tribunal passed the award to the tune of Rs. 1,05,842/- with interest @ 6% p.a. payable from 06.03.2020. (5) Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the appellant suffered a fracture on the spinal cord and the Medical Board assessed the extent of disability to be 40% and opined that the same is not treatable. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has not considered the disability certificate and the reasons assigned by the Tribunal are contrary to the evidence adduced by AW/2, the doctor who issued the disability certificate. He contends that the appellant is unable to perform her routine work and she has been fired from her job on account of her disability. He further contends that without assigning any cogent reason, the monthly salary of the appellant was reduced to Rs. 10,000/- p.m. whereas the evidence adduced by AW/3, who was an Editor at the appellant’s workplace, confirmed that the appellant was earning Rs. 11,000/- p.m. and the salary slips (Exhibit A/42) were also produced to substantiate the same. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the matter of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and Others. reported in 2003 (2) SCC 274 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “In the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record if the Tribunal/court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. The only embargo is it should be 4 "just" compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. This is clear from Sections 166(1) & (4), 158(6) and 168.” He prays to enhance the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal taking into consideration the extent of permanent disability which caused substantial loss of income to the appellant. (6) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submits that AW/2, namely, Dr. Vinod Kumar Pandey in cross-examination has clearly stated that the bone injury was not detected during the MLC. He further submits that it was also found in the MRI that injury over the spinal cord occurred much prior to the accident. He contends that the learned Tribunal has rightly discarded the disability certificate. He further contends that there is no functional disability and the appellant failed to prove the same by adducing clinching evidence. (7) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-driver endorses the submissions made by counsel for the Insurance Company. (8) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. (9) As per the contents of the application moved under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 and evidence led by the parties, it is quite vivid that on the date of the accident, the appellant was driving a scooty, therefore, it can safely be presumed that her physical condition was absolutely fit. She sustained injuries over various body parts and a 5 fracture was also detected on the spinal cord. Some old injuries were also detected in the MRI and CT scan but there is no document to establish that the fracture over the spinal cord was sustained by the appellant in some previous incident. As it is already held that the appellant was driving her scooty and she was working as Bureau Chief in Darshan News Paper, therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the appellant was physically fit prior to the accident. Dr. Vinod Kumar Pandey (AW/2), who was a member of the Medical Board, has categorically stated that the extent of permanent disability was 40% and the same was untreatable. The tribunal has considered only one part wherein it was admitted by the doctor that there was some old injury over the spinal cord, thus the reasoning given by the learned Tribunal in this regard appears to be erroneous. Accordingly, the disability certificate (A/15) is accepted to be true. (10) The learned tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 10,000/- p.m. whereas her employer was examined as AW/3, who in evidence has stated that the appellant was working as Bureau Chief and was earning Rs. 11,000/- p.m. and in this regard, salary slips (A/42) have also been placed on record. (11) Taking into consideration the oral as well as documentary evidence, the income of the appellant is assessed to be Rs. 11,000/- p.m. Learned tribunal has awarded Rs. 30,000/- for loss of income for a period of three months which appears to be reasonable and under other heads also, the Tribunal has awarded reasonable amounts. 6 (12) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on the record, this Court is re-computing the compensation in accordance with the permanent disability of 40% and the age of the appellant to be 30 years as below:- S.No. Particular Awarded amount by the Court 1. Monthly income of the injured Rs. 11,000/- 2. Monthly income after disability @ 40% Rs. 4,400/- 3. Total annual income Rs. 52,800/- 4. Multiplier of 17 applied Rs. 8,97,600/- 5. Medical bills / expenses Rs. 17,242/- 6. Special Diet Rs. 5,000/- 7. Transportation expenses Rs. 3,000/- 8. Attendant expenses Rs. 600/- 9. Pain and Agony Rs. 25,000/- 10. Loss of Convenience Rs. 25,000/- 11. Loss of income for the period of three months Rs. 30,000/- Total compensation Rs. 10,03,442/- (13) For the foregoing reasons, the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,05,842/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 10,03,442/-. Hence, in addition to Rs. 1,05,842/- awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant is held entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 8,97,600/-. (14) Respondents No. 2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The 7 additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. The rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. (15) As a result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated hereinabove. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya