1 2025:CGHC:13818 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 307 of 2020 1 - Vijesh Kumar S/o Mangalsai, Aged About 26 Years R/o Saraigahna, Police Station And Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus 1 - Sakattar Prasad S/o Mahesh Ram, Aged About 42 Years R/o Saraigahna, Police Station And Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. (Alleged To Be Owner Of Offending Vehicle Bolero Bearing No. C.G.-12-D-0239).. 2 - Shivshankar @ Guddu S/o Arjun, Aged About 27 Years R/o Saraigahna (Majhapara), Police Station And Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Bolero Bearing No. C.G.-12-D- 0239). 3 - R.K. Mishra S/o M.L. Mishra, R/o Nearby Santoshi Mandir, Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Bolero Bearing No. C.G.-12-D-0239). --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 22/03/2025 1. Claimant/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.03.25 11:39:48 +0530 2 Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, District – Koriya (C.G.) (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 06.12.2019 passed in Claim Case No.16/2019 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.65,000/- as compensation in an injury case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 02.03.2018 at about 11.00 o’clock, the appellant was standing near his house on his motor cycle, at that time, offending vehicle Bolero bearing registration No. C.G.-12-D-239 driven by respondent No.2 rashly and negligently dashed the motor cycle due to which he fell down and sustained severe injuries and his left leg was broken near toe joint. He also sustained various other injuries over his other parts of body. He was taken to Hospital at Baikunthpur for treatment, where his left leg was operated and rod was inserted. 3. Appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- pleading therein that due to the accident he suffered various severe injuries over his body. On the date of accident, he was working as mason and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. On account of motor-accidental injuries, he is now unable to perform his work in the manner as he was doing prior to accident and thus suffered loss of income. Claimant has also sought compensation under all other heads as are available to him like towards special diet, for transportation, for attendant, pain and sufferings etc. 4. Non-applicant Nos.1 & 2/driver and owner of offending vehicle, submitted reply and resisted the claim. It was pleaded that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was not registered in the name of 3 respondent No.1 and it is not clear that on the date and time of accident, who was the registered owner of the offending vehicle. It was further pleaded that the accident was not caused by the offending vehicle. The amount of compensation as claimed by the appellant is highly exaggerated. 5. Respondent No.3 refuting the claim, pleaded that on 29.05.2017 he has sold the offending vehicle to K.C. Jain, R/o. Village- Katghora and thereafter, the offending vehicle was again sold to Mohan Lal Chandra by K.C. Jain. Mohan Lal Chandra was in possession of offending vehicle, driving the same for approximately four years. Therefore, accident, if any, occured involving the offending vehicle, the responsibility to satisfy the amount of compensation is with Respondents No. 1 and 2. 6. Upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, the learned Claims Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2, due to which the appellant suffered injuries. Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.65,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, fastened liability upon non-applicant No.2 and 3 to pay the amount of compensation. 7. Learned counsel for appellant submits that Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation. It is submitted that learned Claims Tribunal failed to consider the evidence brought on record regarding the income of deceased and erroneously assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.4500/- per month as notional income. It is submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal failed to award proper and suitable 4 compensation towards special diet and attendant. He prays that amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 8. Learned counsel for respondents opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant. They would submit that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation on each and every head. The impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is on proper appreciation of facts and evidence brought on record by the respective parties, which does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. It is not in dispute that on account of accident, apart from the other injuries, the appellant suffered fracture on his left leg and his left leg was operated and rod was inserted. He was admitted for about 32 days in the hospital. 11. So far as the income of the appellant is concerned, It is pleaded and stated in evidence that appellant does the work of mason and earn Rs.12,000/- per month. Though the appellant has failed to prove the nature of occupation and income, however, as per the notification issued by the Labour Commissioner-cum-Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, income of even labourer during the relevant period has been fixed as Rs.7930/-. In the aforementioned facts of the case, this Court find it appropriate to assess the income of the appellant to be Rs.7930/- per month for calculating the amount of compensation. 12. There is no dispute that due to the accident, the appellant could not perform his work for about four months. The Claims Tribunal has also 5 held that the appellant suffered loss of income of four months. Therefore, by taking the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.7930/-, the loss of income of the appellant is assessed as Rs.31,720/-. 13. The Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,000/- towards special diet which is required to be enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. Likewise, the amount awarded towards attendant is also required to be enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. The amount of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation and Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is maintained. 14. On the basis of above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :- S.N. Head Amount. 1. Loss of income for our months (Rs.7930x4) : Rs.31,720.00 2. For special diet : Rs.10,000.00 (enhanced) 3. For Transportation : Rs.5,000.00 (maintained) 4. For attendant : Rs.10,000.00 (enhanced) 5. For special diet : Rs.10,000.00 (enhanced) 6. For pain and suffering : Rs.30,000.00 (maintained) Total Compensation : Rs.96,720.00 15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.96,720.00. Since the Claims Tribunal has already awarded Rs.65,000/-, after deducting the same, claimant/appellant is now entitled for an amount of Rs.31,720/-. This 6 amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram