1 2025:CGHC:23066 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 441 of 2019 1. Khaniyalal Ravte S/o Firturam Ravte Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Kachhe Tashil,bhanupratappur, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant-claimant versus 1. Mohit Kumar Yadav S/o Late Bhagchand Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Bagolipara, Ward No. 15, Dallirajhar, Tahsil Doundi, District Baloda Chhattisgarh.(Driver). 2. Brijlal Jaiswal S/o Late Harishanker Jaiswal Aged About 71 Years R/o Village Kachhe, Tahsil Bhanupratappur, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh.(Owner), 3. Chola Mandalam Ms General Insurance Co.Ltd. Through Its Branch Manager, Raipur Chhattisgarh.(Insurer). ... Respondents For Appellant : Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shokie Yadav, Advocat Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 11/06/2025 1. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 fairly submits that the Claims Tribunal has fastened liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the respondents, jointly and severaly, but 2 first liability to pay the amount of compensation is upon the insurance company being the insurer of offending vehicle. 2. With consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 3. This miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) has been preferred on behalf of appellant-injured for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhanupratappur vide award dated 1.9.2018 by which a sum of Rs.213240/- has been awarded as compensation for 53.8% permanent disability suffered by claimant in a motor vehicular accident. 4. Appellant-claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.16,50,432/- under various heads, on the ground that on 30.3.2017 at about 12:15 p.m. while he was coming out from Auridongri Mines at Kachhe, truck bearing registration number CG08-AB-7329, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by non-applicant No.1-driver, dashed him and caused accident. Appellant sustained multiple grievous injuries all over the body. Claimant was 23 years old at the time of accident, he was working as Labourer at Auridongri Mines and doing agriculture work in his fields and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Application filed by claimant-injured was resisted by non-applicants Nos.1 to 3, i.e. the owner- 3 insured and the insurer on the grounds taken in the respective replies. Learned Claims Tribunal after analzying the evidence led by the respective parties, allowed the application of claimant in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.2,13,240/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. 5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal overlooking the disability certificate issued by the Competent Authority mentioning percentage of disability to be 53.8%, has assessed loss of future income at Rs.1,65,240/- treating the appellant to have suffered 18% disablement of permanent nature, which is erroneous. She further submits that the Claims Tribunal has assessed income of appellant as Rs.4500/- per month only without considering the fact that accident occurred on 30.3.2017 and on which date even the minimum wage rate prevailing and fixed by the Competent Authority was much more than that. Lastly, she contended that amount of compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side. Hence, she prays that the amount of compensation be enhanced suitably. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 opposes the submissions of learned counsel for appellant and submits that the Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation which does not call for any interference. 4 Though the certificate issued by the competent authority mentions that appellant has suffered 52.8% disability, but the Claims Tribunal recorded specific reason for arriving at conclusion that appellant has suffered 18% loss of earning capacity. Date of accident is 30.3.2017, however, appellant failed to prove his occupation and income by adducing cogent and clinching documentary evidence before the Claims Tribunal and therefore, assessment of income of deceased in the facts of the case is just and proper. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record of claim case including impugned award. 8. So far as assessment of income of appellant is concerned, as appellant failed to prove his occupation and income by adducing documentary evidence in support thereof, therefore, the Claims Tribunal assessed monthly income of claimant as Rs.4,500/- on notional basis. It is well settled that if the claimant failed to prove the nature of occupation and income, learned Claims Tribunal has to assess occupation to be a labourer and to assess the income considering the price index, cost of living, wage structure prevailing within the area the victim was residing etc. and may also take note of minimum wages fixed by the Commissioner and Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages act, 1948. In case at hand, appellant is resident of District North Bastar Kanker, which falls 5 within Zone ‘C’, as classified by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and minimum wage rate for an unskilled labourer of a ‘C’ grade city of the State prescribed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the period 1.10.2016 to 31.3.2017 was Rs.6,206/-. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal erred in fixing notional income of victim on lower side without assigning any reason thereof. Hence, considering the facts of the case, I find it appropriate to fix Rs.6,206/- as notional income of the appellant for the purpose of calculating the compensation. It is ordered accordingly. 9. So far as the submission of learned counsel for appellant with respect to assessment of loss of earning capacity to the tune of 18% is concerned, perusal of the evidence of the appellant would show that he has stated that he was doing labour work in mines, due to nature of injury resulting into permanent disability he is unable to do labour work in agriculture fields. In the applicant, appellant has pleaded with respect to fracture of his leg, but pleaded that the entire medical expenses have been borne by the management of mines. He has further stated that he is not doing any work after the accident. The doctor who treated the appellant has been examined as AW-2. This witness in his examination has proved issuance of disability certificate (Ex.P-10) after examination of appellant by 6 the Medical Board. He further stated that disability certificate is issued for a period of three years and thereafter on being applied by appellant, certificate can be issued after examination. He has further stated that disability certificate is issued for the purpose of government works. In the entire evidence of the doctor, it is not specifically mentioned that due to nature of injury sustained by appellant and disability, as mentioned therein, he could not able to do any work. 10. In case of Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & another, reported in (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 343, Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the award of compensation in a permanent disability case has held that disability sustained and mentioned in the disability certivicate will not only be sufficient to award compensation towards loss of future earning and it has to be looked into the effect and impact of such disability on the earning capacity. Relevant paras of the said judgment reads as under:- “9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of 7 a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100%. 10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of 8 earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation.” 11. In case at hand, the doctor (PW-2) has not stated in his evidence that due to nature of disability or injury suffered by appellant on his lower limb, he will not be able to do any work. Hence, the percentage of loss of earning capacity would not be the same as mentioned in the disability certificate, which is with respect to lower limb of the body only. However, the Claims Tribunal without assigning any specific reason has assessed loss of earning capacity at 18% as against 53.8% mentioned in disability certificate. In one of the case, the doctor examined to prove permanent disability has stated that for assessing the permanent disability with respect to whole body, when there is disability suffered by victim on one of limbs or part of body, the disability has to be divided from 2.5. to ascertain disability with respect to whole body. Upon applying the said principle, percentage of disability suffered by appellant would come to 21.52% (53.8 / 2.5) Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing loss of earning capacity at 18% in stead of 21.52%. Accordingly, it is ordered that the appellant has suffered 21.52% permanent disability. 12. Perusal of impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded anything towards future prospects. 9 In case of Sidram vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that future prospects can be awarded in cases of permanent disability. Relevant portion of the judgment reads thus: "31. It is now a well-settled position of law that even in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future prospects as well. We have come across many orders of different tribunals and unfortunately affirmed by different High Courts, taking the view that the claimant is not entitled to compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. That is not a correct position of law. There is no justification to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading is illogical because it denies altogether the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in accident cases -- and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim's death.” 13. In view of the above decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that the Claims Tribunal has erred in not granting compensation under the head ‘loss of future prospects. Hence, I find it appropriate to award future 10 prospects of 40% to the appellant, who was below 40 years of age at the time of accident and not in permanent job. It is ordered accordingly. 14. Looking to the nature of injuries sustained by appellant and period of treatment undergone by him, not only the amount of compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal under other heads like ‘pains and sufferings’, ‘nutritious diet’ is liable to be enhanced but appellant is also entitled for compensation under the head ‘attendant’. Accordingly, it is ordered that appellant will be entitled for a sum of Rs.15000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.10,000/- towards nutritious diet; Rs.10,000/- towards attendant. 15. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proposes to recompute the amount of compensation payable to the appellant. 16.Accordingly, income of appellant is taken as Rs.6,206/- per month and after adding 40% towards future prospects, the monthly income of appellant would come to Rs.8,688/- and annual income would be Rs.1,04,256/-. Applying multiplier of 17, as applied by Claims Tribunal as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, total income comes to Rs.17,73,352/-. As already held above that appellant suffered 21.52% loss of earning capacity, therefore, 11 loss of future income occasioned to appellant would be Rs.3,81,056/- (21.52% of 1773352). Besides this, appellant is entitled for Rs.18000/- for loss of income during treatment, Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.10,000/- for special diet; Rs.10,000/- for attendant; Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses-cum-transportation. Thus, the appellant is now entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,54,055/- in place of Rs.2,13,240/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. This amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. 17. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount already paid to appellant as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above. 18.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/- SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI