1 2025:CGHC:25151 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 121 of 2021  Surendra Yadav S/o Shivsharan Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o Bapu Nagar, Khursipar, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Vijay Rai S/o Nandu Rai Aged About 29 Years R/o Ghasidas Nagar, H. N. 673, Behind Shiv Kirana Store, Police Station Jamul, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Hyva Truck No. C G 07- C- 5509), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2. B. Keshwan S/o K. Bairagi R/o H. N. 23/b, Street No. 04, Sector 1, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Hyva Truck No. C G 07- C- 5509), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3. National Insurance Company Limited Branch No. 1, Bhutani Complex, G. E. Road, Power House, Bhilai Through Akash Ganga Supela, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Hyva Truck No. C G 07- C- 5509), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 2 18/06/2025 1) Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against award passed by the learned Sixth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 170/2017 dated 17.12.2020 whereby the learned Tribunal has passed award to the tune of Rs. 6,46,168/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of application. 2) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on 31.01.2017, when the appellant was riding his bicycle, the offending vehicle i.e. Hyva Truck bearing registration No. CG–07–C–5509 being driven by the respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently dashed the bicycle and as a result, appellant suffered amputation of one leg below knee. He further submits that appellant filed claim case under Section 166 of the MV Act and stated that at the time of accident, his age was 40 years and he was working as Welder in Simplex–Bhilai and was earning Rs. 10,000/- p.m. He contends that the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board wherein disability of 40% was assessed was exhibited as Exhibit A/2 but the learned Tribunal considered only 30% disability. He further contends that the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the appellant to the tune of Rs. 6,000/- which is on lower side. He prays to enhance the amount of compensation. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent– Insurance Company opposes. He submits that learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. 3 4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5) Evidently, in the year 2017, minimum wages payable to a skilled– labourer in State of Chhattisgarh was Rs. 6,648/- p.m. The learned Tribunal has assessed monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 6,000/- and in the opinion of this Court, it does not require any interference. 6) With regard to disability certificate, as there was amputation of one leg below knee, disability was assessed by the Medical Board to the tune of 40% but functional disability was assessed by the Tribunal as 30% and admittedly, appellant, who was working as welder can perform his job without very less or no difficulty. Therefore, the Tribunal assessed the functional disability to the tune of 30% and same does not warrant any interference. 7) Taking into consideration the facts discussed above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order impugned. Consequently, this appeal is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Ajinkya Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.06.18 18:08:41 +0530