-1- 2025:CGHC:32398 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 417 of 2019 Ghanshyam S/o Chedilal Baraith Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Dabra, Police Station And Tehsil Dabra District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant (s) versus 1 - Ramayan Singh S/o Ramratan Singh Aged About 47 Years R/o Noharda, Police Station Noharda District Rohtas Bihar. 2 - Surendra Yadav S/o Hari Yadav Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No. 5, Jagatpur/ Dhimrapur Chowk, Raigarh Tehsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager Through New India Insurance Company Private Limited, Division Office, 2nd Floor, Sonalia Building , Satigudi Chowk, Sadar Bazaar Road, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) ________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate _________________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 11/07/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally. Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.07.22 11:27:43 +0530 -2- 2. This is claimant’s appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) challenging the award 16th November 2018 passed by learned First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa in Claim Case No.72 of 2016. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellant/claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, pleading therein that on 05/01/2016 at about 2.30 p.m. when applicant was returning home on his motorcycle no. CG 11 M. 3780 after buying grocery items, non-applicant No.1 drove the vehicle Hywa no. CG 13 UF 3500 rashly and negligently and dashed the applicant along with his motorcycle, caused an accident, due to which, he suffered serious injuries on his head, hands, legs and waist. The bones of waist and head were fractured. The applicant was admitted for treatment in Community Health Centre, Dabhra, he was thereafter referred to Ramakrishna Care Hospital, Raipur, where he was given intensive treatment. The applicant was earning Rs. 4500/- monthly and Rs. 54,000/- annually from laundry business. Applicant claimed for total compensation of Rs. 53,22,000/- (Fifty three lakh twenty two thousand rupees) from non-applicants under various heads. 4. Non-applicants No.1 and 2 in their reply have denied the pleadings made by the claimant and further pleaded that applicant has lodged a false report in connivance with Dabra police station to obtain compensation in an improper manner. Applicant did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive a motorcycle on the date of the accident. Non-applicant -3- No.1 has not caused accident to the applicant by driving hywa vehicle rashly and negligently. On the date of accident, non-applicant No.2 had the goods vehicle permit, fitness certificate and non-applicant No.1 had valid and effective driving licence of the said vehicle. The offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3, therefore, liability to pay amount of compensation is not on non-applicants No. 1 & 2 but on non-applicant No.3 i.e. insurer of the vehicle. 5. Non-applicant No.3 in its reply, denied the pleadings of the applicant and further pleaded that the said accident happened due to collision between two vehicles. The accident happened due to the negligent act of the applicant himself. Applicant is not entitled to get compensation by taking advantage of his own mistake. If the applicant is found to be entitled to get compensation, then the amount of compensation should be deducted in proportion to the negligence of the applicant. Non-applicant No.1 did not have a valid and effective license to drive the offending vehicle. The vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 without registration, permit, fitness in violation of conditions of insurance policy. Therefore, claim application against non-applicant No.3 be dismissed. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which appellant/claimant suffered grievous injuries. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found proved, non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company was held liable to pay the amount of compensation. Assessing -4- income of the appellant/claimant as Rs.4500/- per month on notional basis, calculated amount of compensation under different heads, awarded total compensation of Rs.16,17,795/- -. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded sufficient amount of compensation in facts of case. Looking to the nature of injury, claimant was further entitled for amount of compensation towards future treatment. However, not a single penny has been awarded under said head. He also contended that Claims Tribunal awarded loss of income only for a period of 4 months overlooking the fact that claimant took treatment as inpatient continuously for more than 4 months and even after discharge, claimant could not able to perform his work for couple of months. Hence, award of compensation of Rs.18,000/- towards loss of income towards period of treatment is erroneous and needs enhancement. Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs.17850/- only for the period appellant took treatment as inpatient. Looking to the nature of injury and details of treatment as mentioned in discharge summary appellant may have required the attendant for his care for further few months which was not awarded and the award of compensation towards special diet is also on lower side. He submits that no amount is awarded towards pains and suffering. He prays for enhancement of amount of compensation suitably. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 Insurance Company would submit that learned Tribunal has awarded the entire bills towards treatment, loss of income during treatment, for attendant , special diet, hence, amount of compensation awarded is just and proper in the facts of case which does not call for any interference. -5- 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records of claim case. 10. Perusal of the record of claim case would show that claimant has filed discharge summary of Ramkrishna Care Hospital as Ex.P-139. Under column of final diagnosis, it is mentioned- Head Injury with Spine Injury and in the History it is further recorded- Trauma due to RTA (road traffic accident) on 05.01.2016- sustain head injury with spine injury, Primary treatment from Jeevan Deep Samiti, Janjgir and thereafter approached Ramkrishna Care Hospital Raipur. Course in Hospital is reproduced as under: “Course in Hospital Patient was admitted with history of trauma due to RTA on 05.01.2016 On admission patient was GCS EIM4V1 gasping condition. After stablisation CT head (P) + BW and all routine blood investigation taken. Patient shifted to ICU. Patient kept on ventisupport and treated conservatively with antibiotics, antiedema, anticonvulsent IV fluids and other supportive medicine. Patient recover slowely. Trachiostomy done on ICU after ventisupport off and improving GCS. Patient shifted stapdown ICU and treated conservatilely, nursing care, Physiotheraphy, trachiostomy care included MRI dorsal spine with SR done. advised to stay more for further management but they are not willing hence patient DOR with explained risk and prognosis. Condition at the time of discharge - Trachiostomy, conscious, obeying Left LL weakness.” 11.As per advice on discharge the appellant was advised for nursing care, physiotherapy, back care, wheel chair etc. 12. From aforementioned advice as mentioned in discharge summary it is -6- crystal clear that even after discharge from hospital claimant needed nursing care, physiotherapy and back care, however, no compensation is awarded by Claims Tribunal under these heads. 13. In the discharge summary itself it is mentioned – “acute traumatic fracture involving at D-3, D-4, D-6 and L1 vertebral bodies” and further it mentions that - “diffuse posterior disc bulge is seen at L-4-5 level with posterior central prostrusion causing indentation of thecal sac. The injury which suffered by claimant/appellant in the motor accident was very severe and therefore in the opinion of this Court claimant could not have performed his work for earning his livelihood for about 6 months after discharge from hospital. Therefore, claimant is entitled for loss of income for a period of 10 months. It is ordered accordingly. As the claimant has pleaded his income as Rs.4500/- per month, therefore, loss of income for 10 months would be Rs.45,000/- . It is ordered accordingly. 14. Claims Tribunal overlooking the advice as mentioned in discharge summary for further care and physiotherapy has not awarded any amount of compensation towards future treatment. 15. Considering the advice mentioned in discharge summary, I find it appropriate to award Rs.50,000/- towards future treatment and care of the claimant. 16. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under head of ‘pains and suffering.’ Looking to the nature of injury and part of body on which appellant suffered fracture injury i.e. forehead, spine bone, it may have its effect on appellant’s life for long time, I find it appropriate to award Rs.50,000/- towards pains and suffering. -7- 17. Tribunal has awarded only Rs.17,850/- towards attendant which is on lower side in view of discussions as made above and advice as mentioned in discharge summary, I find it appropriate to award the compensation of Rs.35,700/- under head of ‘attendant’ for a period of 8 months (4 months during treatment period and 4 months after discharge); Rs.15,000/- towards conveyance/transportation expenses. Amount of compensation awarded under head of ‘special diet’ of Rs.5000/- is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. 18. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation towards injury suffered by clamant. Claimant has suffered serious injury over the person and therefore I find it appropriate to award Rs.40,000/- as compensation towards grievous injury suffered by him. It is ordered accordingly. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant could not able to point out that the award of compensation under medical expenses is erroneous or the Claims Tribunal escaped consideration any of the bill/document as produced in evidence and, therefore, amount of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal towards medical expenses of Rs.16,29,945/- is affirmed. 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. Expenses towards treatment taken in hospital and medicines : Rs. 16,29,945 2 Loss of income for 10 months (4500 x 10= 45000) : Rs. 45,000 -8- 3. Attendant for 8 months (4 months during treatment in hospital + 4 months after discharge) : Rs. 35,700 4. Special Diet : Rs. 20,000 5. Conveyance/Transportation expenses : Rs. 15,000 6. Pains and suffering : Rs. 50,000 7. Grievous injury : Rs. 40,000 8. Future medical expenses : Rs. 50,000 Total compensation : Rs. 18,85,645 21. Now the appellant/claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs. 18,85,645/- instead of Rs.16,70,795/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 22. Aforementioned total amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% 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/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen