1 2025:CGHC:15027 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 424 of 2020 1 - Mohammad Kurban Sah S/o Mohd. Rafik Sah Aged About 32 Years Occupation- Mechanic, Solar Bijli, Resident Of Ranpurkhurd, Police Station And Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Surendra Kumar Bhuiya S/o Tilak Ram Bhuiya Aged About 42 Years Occupation- Driver, Resident Of Village- Pauradhar, Chouki- Kalim Mandir, Post- Pauradhar, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Offending Pickup Cg-15-A-5674), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Shashikant Singh S/o Gajendra Narayan Singh Aged About 49 Years Occupation- Pickup Vehicle Owner, Resident Of Kitab Ghar, Gandhi Stadium Complex Ambikapur, Police Station And Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Offending Pickup Cg-15-A- 5674), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through- Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Ambikapur, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Offending Pickup Cg-15-A-5674), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate with Ms. Kalyani Kashyap, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 & 2: None For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Veethika Choubey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocate. NISHA DUBEY Digitally signed by NISHA DUBEY Date: 2025.04.03 15:49:51 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 28/03/2025 1. Notice sent to respondents No.1 & 2 returned unserved. 2. In the impugned award, learned Claims Tribunal has held respondent No.3 Insurance Company liable to satisfy the amount of compensation. Liability fastened upon respondent No.3 to satisfy the amount of compensation is not challenged nor disputed before this Court, hence, service of notice to respondents No.1 & 2 is dispensed with. With the consent of parties, the case is heard finally. 3. Claimant-appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act of 1988') challenging award dated 03.02.2020 passed by learned 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surguja(for short 'the Claims Tribunal') in M.A.C.T. Case No.246/2018, whereby the Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.1,02,803/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of application till its realization. 4. Brief facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that in the night of 24.03.2017 at 08:45 pm, when appellant along with Sobarati and Israfil were standing besides the road and discussing about their work, at that time one pickup vehicle bearing registration No.CG15/A/5674, driven in high speed, rashly and negligently by non-applicant No.1, dashed them 3 and caused accident. In the said accident, appellant suffered grievious injuries on his right knee, elbow, back and other parts of body including fracture in thigh. Appellant was treated in District Hospital Ambikapur from 24.03.2017 to 05.04.2017. Incident was reported in Police Station Ambikapur based on which Crime No.138/17 was registered against non-applicant No.1. During treatment, appellant underwent surgery and a iron rod was implanted, which requires further surgery. Appellant filed an application before competent Claims Tribunal claiming an amount of Rs.15,51,000/- as compensation under the head of grievous injuries, permanent disability etc. 5. Non-applicant No.1 i.e. driver of offending vehicle, did not appear before the Claims Tribunal even after notice and therefore he was proceeded ex-parte. 6. Non-applicant No.2, owner of offending vehicle, filed his reply to claim application and denied all adverse pleadings made in application. He has pleaded that non-applicant No.1 was driving vehicle cautiously & carefully. On the date of accident non-applicant No.1 was having valid and effective driving license; the offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.1 Insurance Company and as the offending vehicle was not plied in violation of any of the conditions of insurance policy, therefore, the insurance company is liable to indemnify owner in case any compensation is awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 4 7. Non-applicant No.3 Insurance Company filed its separate reply and denied averments made in claim application except that on the date of accident the offending motorcycle was insured with it. Driver of offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license and other documents relating to offending vehicle were also not valid and effective. As the vehicle was being plied in violation of conditions of insurance policy, therefore, insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. 8. The Claims Tribunal after appreciating pleadings and evidence brought on record by the respective parties has partly allowed claim application by holding that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by driver of offending vehicle; claimant had not suffered any permanent disablement in the said accident; there was no violation of any condition of insurance policy and accordingly computed and awarded Rs.1,02,803/- as compensation. 9. Learned counsel for claimant-appellant submits that the appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement the amount of compensation, on the ground that the amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is very meagre in the facts of the case. Learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of appellant as Rs.4,500/- per month only on notional basis overlooking the date of accident to be 24.3.2017. He contended that if for any reason learned Claims Tribunal came to conclusion that the appellant failed to 5 prove his occupation and the income, then the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for purpose of computing the amount of compensation. He further contended that appellant suffered thigh bone fracture (shaft femur). He also contended that in the accident there was disfiguration of right thigh bone along with other injuries of which appellant underwent operation. The rod was implanted for affixing thigh bone. However, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded loss of income for 09 days, which is period during which the appellant remained admitted in the hospital . The amount of compensation has not been awarded for the loss of income during the laid down period i.e. from the date of accident till the date of recovery. He also contended that the amount of compensation under other heads is also on lower side, hence, the amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 vehemently opposes the submission made by counsel for appellant and would submit that the amount of compensation as computed by learned Claims Tribunal in the facts of the case is just and proper, which does not call for any interference.. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. Appellant has produced Ex.P/4 MLC of the appellant done just after the accident in which in the column of nature of injury it is mentioned as “pain, tenderness and disfiguration of right 6 thigh”. In the evidence, appellant has categorically stated that in the accidental injury thigh bone broken into two pieces and came out of skin. He underwent surgery and a rod was implanted for joining thigh bone. 13. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the appellant could not be able to perform his work for the purpose of earning the livelihood not only for 09 days during which he was admitted in the hospital for treatment but for further more period till the injury is recovered. Therefore, in the facts of the case, I find it appropriate to award loss of income for a period of 4 months looking to the nature of injury suffered by the appellant. It is ordered accordingly. 14. So far as the income assessed by learned Claims Tribunal of the appellant is concerned of Rs.4,500/- per month, in the opinion of this Court is on lower side. Learned Claims Tribunal has not discussed as to how the Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion with respect to assessment of income of the appellant. In absence of proof of income, it will be appropriate to consider the wages prevailing in the area and further the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority of that period. As per the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for a period from 1.10.2017 till 31.03.2018. The wages fixed for unskilled laborer for A category cities is Rs.8,320/-, for B category Cities is Rs.8,060/-, for ‘C’ category Cities is Rs.7,800/-. Appellant is resident of District-Ambikapur, therefore, according to the 7 notification issued, the monthly income of an unskilled laborer of ‘C’ category city can be taken as mentioned in the notification i.e. Rs.7,800/- per month. Hence, the income of appellant is assessed at Rs.7,800/- per month and accordingly, the appellant will be entitled for Rs.31,200/- (7,800x4) towards loss of income during the period of treatment. 15. From the documents placed on record, it is reflecting that the initially the appellant took treatment at Ambikapur and thereafter looking to the nature of injury, he took treatment from Raipur. He is resident of District-Ambikapur and for the purpose of travelling the appellant might have expended much more amount then Rs.2,000/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal, therefore, I find it appropriate to enhance the amount of compensation under the head of conveyance/transportation expenses to Rs.10,000/-. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded just compensation under the heads of special diet and attendant. 16. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs.10,000/- towards pains and suffering .Considering the entirely of facts of the case and nature of injury suffered as also considering that appellant is working as laborer, the amount of compensation awarded under the head of pains and suffering is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. 17. Going by the medical bills, which were produced by appellant, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.77,503/-, under 8 the head of medical expenses, which is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 18. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now, the appellant will be entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,48,703/- i.e. Rs.31200/- towards loss of income during laid down period, Rs.20,000/- for the pains and sufferings; Rs.77,503/- towards medical expenses; Rs.10,000/- for travelling expenses; Rs.5000/- for special diet and Rs.5000/- for attendant. This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of application till actual payment is made. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain as it is. Any amount of compensation disbursed to appellant pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted. 19. Impugned award passed in MACT Case No.246/2018 is modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Part Prateem Sahu) Judge Nisha