1 2025:CGHC:12791 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 241 of 2022 Smt Rekha Bai, W/o Agarman Das Manikpuri, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Dabarapara, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Sunil Kumar Verma S/o Rajkaran Verma Aged About 33 Years R/o Near Shivam Public School, Baijnath Para, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Driver and Owner of the auto no. C G 07 A X 7346). 2 - Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Office Raj Chambers, Room No. 306, 3rd Floor, Besides Over Bridge Mova, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ( Insurer Of The Auto No. C G 07 A X 7346). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Siddhant Das, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 18/03/2025 1. The appellant has filed this appeal against the award dated 31.08.2021 passed in Claim Case No.246/2018 by the Ist Additional Motor Accident Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 Claims Tribunal, Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2. The facts of the present case, in brief, are that on 29.11.2017 at around 9:15 AM, the appellant was traveling in an auto-rickshaw (CG 07 AX- 7346) to her Village Anda. Near Kuthrel, the vehicle met with an accident, causing her severe injuries, including a fracture of her right leg and permanent disability. The incident was reported to Police Station Anda, Durg, and an FIR was registered against respondent No. 1 under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the IPC. The appellant filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking Rs. 30,00,000/- as compensation, stating that the injuries left her permanently disabled, affecting her livelihood. At the time of the accident, she was 35 years old, working as a skilled labourer in a rice mill, earning Rs. 12,000/- per month. Respondent No. 1 denied liability, stating that the vehicle was insured with respondent No. 2 and the driver had a valid license. The insurance company (respondent No. 2) also denied the liability. The Learned Tribunal, after recording evidence, found that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, resulting in the appellant’s permanent disability. No contributory negligence or policy breach was found. The appellant claimed compensation under various heads, including pain and suffering, loss of amenities, future treatment, and medical expenses. However, vide the impugned award dated 31.08.2021 (Annexure A-1), the Tribunal awarded Rs. 6,10,093/-. Hence, this appeal was filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant / claimant would make the following submissions:- A. The amount of compensation on other heads is on the lower side. 3 The learned tribunal failed to appreciate that the appellant has suffered permanent disability and the doctor certifying the disability certificate has also been examined before the tribunal. B. The learned claims tribunal has awarded a minimal amount for the head of the nutritious diet and attender, which is liable to be enhanced based on various judicial pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. C. The learned claims tribunal has awarded a very small amount on the head of pain and suffering and the tribunal has only awarded 10,000/- which is very meagre, similarly, the amount on other conventional heads is on the lower side which requires to be enhanced accordingly. D. The learned Tribunal failed to grant any amount for the future treatment even after giving a specific finding that the appellant has suffered a permanent disability duly proved by the doctor, therefore, it is prayed that suitable enhancement may be made. 4. Learned counsels for the respondents would support the impugned award and submit that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation to the appellant; thus, no interference is required by this Court with the award impugned. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records. 6. Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and facts of the present case, the award passed by the learned tribunal appears to be insufficient looking to the appellant’s 4 permanent disability; Further, the disability certificate was duly certified and examined before the learned tribunal, thus, the prayer made for enhancement is just and proper. 7. In view of the above, the compensation awarded to the appellant/claimant is enhanced as under:- S. No. Compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal Enhanced Compensation Heads Compensation (in Rs.) 01. Loss of income (Rs. 6,000/- per month for six months) Rs. 36,000/- -- 02. Amount of expenditure incurred in treatment Rs.40,253/- Rs.10,000/- 03. Nutritious died Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 10,000/- 04. Transportation expenses Rs. 10,000/- -- 05. For expenses incurred on assistant during treatment Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- 06. For decreased future income-earning capacity Rs. 4,83,840/- -- 07. Loss of facilities and physical mental pain 10,000/- Rs. 20,000/- 5 and suffering caused to him due to the said injury Total Rs. 6,10,093/- Rs. 50,000/- Grand Total Rs. 6,60,093/- 8. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed in part. Respondents are jointly or severally liable to make payment of enhanced compensation to the appellant within a period of 60 days. In the event of default, the enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of claim application till the date of payment. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge NADIM