1 2025:CGHC:40483 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 452 of 2020 1. Chandrashekhar S/o Radheshyam Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Khapri, Tahsil & District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant-claimant versus 1. Bhuneshwar Dewangan S/o G. Gewangan Aged About 35 Years R/o Mohara, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Offending Vehicle), 2. Ramcharan S/o Pusuram Dewangan Aged About 34 Years R/o Gathulabori, Police Station Rajbag, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Registered Owner Of Offending Vehicle). 3. Divisional Manager Ifco Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Sudhanshu Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 12/8/2025 1. Appellant-claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod (for short ‘the Claims SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 Tribunal’) vide award dated 20.11.2019 in Claim Case No.108/2018. 2. Since it is not in dispute that claimant-appellant sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident dated 25.4.2018, involvement of offending vehicle i.e. Pickup bearing registration No.CG19-BC-4692, which was driven by non- applicant No.1, owned by non-applicant No.2, insured by non- applicant No.3, and liability fastened upon non-applicant No.3 Insurance Company, are not in dispute, therefore, this Court is not adverting to the facts of case and only considering submissions of learned counsel for respective parties on the question of enhancement of quantum of compensation. 3. Learned counsel for claimant/appellant submits that income of claimant-appellant as assessed by the Claims Tribunal is on lower side. Further, the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards special diet, attendant ignoring that claimant sustained grievous injury on his head as also fracture of right leg (Patella Bone), remain hospitalized for about 16 days i.e. from 25.4.2018 to 11.5.2018, even after discharge from hospital, he took treatment as out-patient. Compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal under the head of loss of income during period of treatment, pains and sufferings, conveyance are less. Hence, he prays that amount of compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal be enhanced suitably. 3 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 supporting the award passed by the Claims Tribunal submitted that compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper, it does not call for any interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused record. 6. So far as assessment of income of appellant is concerned, in claim application, claimant pleaded that he is driver by profession and earning Rs.9,000/- per month, however, he failed to prove his occupation and income therefrom as per law, therefore, Claims Tribunal proceeded to assess income of appellant on notional basis. In absence of any proof of occupation and income, approach adopted by Claims Tribunal for assessing monthly income of claimant-appellant cannot be faulted with. The Claims Tribunal referring to Notification dated 1.5.2017 wherein minimum wage for an unskilled labourer was notified as @ Rs.320/- per day, assessed income of appellant as Rs.220/- per day and presuming that claimant would work only for 26 days in a month, assessed his monthly income as Rs.5,720/-, which is erroneous. It may not be thumb rule that every daily wage employee will take weekly off and therefore, considering the age of claimant to be 30 years, who may be married person, his family members could also be dependent on him, and further considering that appellant is resident of District Balod, which comes within 4 Zone-C area, I find it appropriate to assess income of claimant-appellant at Rs.7,930/- per month as notified by the Competent Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for unskilled worker of Zone-C area during that period. It is ordered accordingly. 7. It is ordered accordingly. 7. As per Discharge Summary (Ex.P-29) of Sparsh Multi- specialty Hospital Bhilai, appellant-claimant admitted in hospital on 25.4.2018, he was diagnosed with severe head injury; compound comminuted fracture of right patella bone and crush injury over knee. During hospitalization, he was operated for fracture of right knee on 1.5.2018. Appellant was discharged on 11.5.2018 with advise of follow-up review after 10 days. A fracture normally takes 45-60 days to heal up and therefore, there is no doubt injury (fracture) suffered by appellant herein would have confined him to bed atleast for a period of three months. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the appellant is entitled for compensation under the head of loss of income during treatment for a period of two months and not one month as held by the Claims Tribunal. Accordingly, appellant is held entitled for compensation of Rs.15,890- (7930x2) for loss of income during period of treatment. It is ordered accordingly. 8. Looking to the nature of injuries sustained by appellant i.e. compound comminuted fracture of right patella bone, it cannot be denied that appellant-claimant would have required 5 services of an attendant during hospitalization period as well as for follow-up treatment. Hence, the Claims Tribunal ought to have awarded attendant charges to claimant. Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.16,000/- as compensation for attendant charges. It is ordered accordingly. 9. Taking note of oral evidence and medical records available on record in particular the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, this Court considers it proper to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head of pain and suffering. It is ordered accordingly. 10. Further, the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for grievous injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident. Looking to the fracture injury sustained by appellant, I deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards grievous injuries. It is ordered accordingly. 11. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head of special diet. Looking to the age of appellant and nature of injuries it is quite obvious that during the period of treatment and some time thereafter, appellant- claimant must have been put on special rich diet for considerable period of time, for early recovery. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.8,000/- towards special diet. It is ordered accordingly. 6 12. The compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal towards medical expenses and conveyance expenses is just and proper and the same is maintained. 13. In view of above, claimant/appellant is now entitled for compensation as under;- HEADS : AMOUNT (In Rs.) Medical expenses : 2,59,503=00 Pains and sufferings : 15,000=00 Loss of income during period of treatment (2 months) : 15,890=00 Special diet : 8,000=00 For conveyance : 5,000=00 For Attendant : 16,000=00 For grievous injuries : 15,000=00 Total: 3,29,393=00 14. Now, claimant/appellant is held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,29,393/- in place of Rs.2,70,223/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of application. Any amount disbursed to appellant pursuant to impugned award will be adjusted from the amount of compensation as awarded above. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 15.In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge 7 roshan/-