1 2026:CGHC:6022 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 38 of 2022 Ashish Kumar Baghel, S/o Shri Sohan Singh Baghel Aged About 18 Years R/o Bettipara, Bade Kilepal No. 3, Police Station Kodenar, Tehsil Bastanar, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus 1 - Sanjay Kumar Baghel S/o Shri Mitthuram Baghel Aged About 34 Years R/o Kotwar Gali, Bade Kilepal, Police Station Kodenar, Tehsil Bastanar, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Sonsin Baghel S/o Shri Mitthuram Baghel Aged About 46 Years R/o Bettipara Bade Kilepal No. 3, Police Station Kodenar, Tehsil Bastanar, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager The New Insurance Company Limited, Akashwani Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur). --- Respondent(s) with MAC No. 39 of 2022 Arman Nag, S/o Shri Sunil Nag Aged About 25 Years R/o Bettipara, Bade Kilepal Ni.3, P.S. Kodenar, Tehsil Bastanar, District Bastar (C.G.). ---Appellant Versus 1 - Sanjay Kumar Baghel S/o Shri Mitthuram Baghel Aged About 34 Years R/o Kotwar Gali, Bade Kilepal, P.S. Kodenar, Tehsil Bastanar, District Bastar (C.G.). Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.02.18 10:20:36 +0530 2 2 - Sonsin Baghel S/o Shri Mitthulal Baghel Aged About 46 Years R/o Bettipara Bade Kilepal No. 3 P.S. Kodenar, Tehsil Bastanar, District Bastar (C.G.). 3 - Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited Akashwani Road, Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.). --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Advocate with Ms. Shivali Dubey, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 03/02/2026 1. These appeals have been preferred by the claimants/injured persons seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. In MAC No. 38 of 2022, the claimant is Ashish Kumar Baghel, who filed Claim Case No. 65 of 2020, whereas in MAC No. 39 of 2022, the claimant is Arman Nag, who has challenged the award passed in Claim Case No. 66 of 2020. 3. In Claim Case No. 65 of 2020, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of ₹1,09,967/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on account of injuries sustained by Ashish Kumar Baghel, whereas compensation to the tune of ₹77,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum has been granted to Arman Nag on account of injuries sustained by him. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants were occupants of car bearing registration No. CG-17-C-3463 and while they were returning from Jagdalpur, the driver of the said car, drove it rashly 3 and negligently, and dashed it against standing Mango Tree. In the said accident, Ashish Kumar Baghel sustained injuries over various parts of the body including fracture of right hand, resulting in 35 % permanent disability. The medical board issued disability certificate vide Ex.A/43. 5. Another claimant Arman Nag sustained injuries over face, including fracture of the right side of the jaw, resulting in 20 % permanent disability. 6. In MAC No.38 of 2022, the learned Tribunal honored the medical bills submitted by the claimants to the tune of Rs.43,607/-. The learned Tribunal further awarded Rs.15,000/- towards pain & suffering andRs. 40,000/- for future loss of earning, ; Rs.8,000/- for attendant and special diet. Learned Tribunal further granted sum of Rs.3,000 for transportation. 7. In MAC No. 39/2022, the learned Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.4,000/- as medical expenses incurred in treatment; Rs.10,000/- towards attendant and special diet and Rs. 3,000/- towards transportation. Learned Tribunal further granted Rs.20,000/- for pain & suffering and Rs.40,000/- for future medical expenses. 8. Ms. Dubey and Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the claimants would argue that the learned Tribunal failed to grant just and adequate compensation to the claimants. They would 4 contend that claimant Ashish Kumar Baghel was a student aged about 18 years. He would submit that though the Tribunal considered permanent disability to the extent of 35%, but failed to grant compensation for loss of earning capacity. They would further submit that the learned Tribunal failed to award compensation for attendant separately. 9. They would contend that in the case of Arman Nag, the learned Tribunal has not granted compensation for loss of amenities, loss of marriage prospects, and loss of earning. They would pray that the compensation may be enhanced accordingly. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Deepak Gupta, learned counsel for the insurance company would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants. He would further submit that the disability certificate (Ex. A/43) in the case of Ashish Kumar Baghel was issued as per the Keslar system and Dr. Lakhan Lal Thakur, in his evidence, has stated that the functional disability would be 1/3rd of the total disability. He would further submit that in the case of Arman Nag, there was no such disability which would affect his earning capacity, therefore, both the appeals deserve to be dismissed. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. The claimant Ashish Kumar Baghel was a student, aged about 18 5 years. He suffered permanent disability to the extent of 35 %. As per evidence of Dr. Lakhan Lal Thakur (AW/2), the functional disability would be 1/3rd of total disability. Looking to the age of claimant and nature of injuries functional disability is assessed to the extent of 15%. However, learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the heads of annual income, future prospects, permanent disability, and consequential loss of future earnings by applying the appropriate multiplier. In my opinion, claimant shall be entitled for compensation for loss of income according to the extent of disability assessed hereinabove. He would further be entitled for an additional sum of 40% of established income for future prospect and looking to age of claimant, appropriate multiplier would be 18. The minimum wage admissible to an unskilled laborer in the month of October 2019 was ₹9,120/- per month and this figure is being taken to assess loss of income. 13. Thus, compensation requires reconsideration and same is being revisited herein below :- Sl. No. Head Compensation granted by the learned Tribunal Compensation granted by this Court 1 Medical Bills ₹43,607/- ₹43,607/- 2 Special Diet and Attendant ₹8,000/- ₹8,000/- 3 Transportation ₹3,000/- ₹3,000/- 4 Pain and Suffering ₹55,000/- ₹55,000/- 5 Annual Income Nil ₹9,120 × 12 = ₹1,09,440/- 6 Future Prospects (@40%) Nil ₹1,09,440/-+ ₹43,776/-= Rs.1,53,216/- 6 Sl. No. Head Compensation granted by the learned Tribunal Compensation granted by this Court (@40%) 7 Disability (15%) Nil ₹1,53,216 × 15% = ₹22,982.40/- 8 Multiplier (18) Nil ₹22,982.40 × 18 = ₹4,13,683.20/- Total ₹1,09,607 ₹5,23,290/- Final Compensation ₹5,23,290-₹1,09,607 ₹4,13,683/- 14. In the matter of Arman Nag, the claimant suffered fracture of side line of jaw, which resulted in dis-figuration but claimant failed to establish that fracture over jaw affected his earning capacity, thus in my opinion, learned Tribunal rightly declined grant of loss of earning based on disability. Learned Tribunal has honored the medical bills ; granted Rs. 10,000/- for special diet and attendant charges ; granted Rs. 60,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 3,000/- for transportation. However, as the injuries sustained by claimant resulted in dis-figuration of face and since he was a bachelor, therefore he would be entitled to receive separate compensation towards loss of amenities and loss of marriage prospect. Thus, award passed by learned Tribunal requires reconsideration and same is being revisited herein below :- Sl. No. Head Compensation granted by the learned Tribunal Compensation granted by this Court 1. Medical Bills ₹4,000/- ₹4,000/- 2. Special Diet and Attendant ₹10,000/- ₹10,000/- 7 Sl. No. Head Compensation granted by the learned Tribunal Compensation granted by this Court 3. Transportation ₹3,000/- ₹3,000/- 4. Pain and Suffering ₹60,000/- ₹60,000/- 5. Marriage Prospect Nil ₹1,00,000/- 6. Loss of amenities Nil ₹ 50,000/- TOTAL ₹ 77,000/- ₹2,27,000/- Enhanced compensation ₹2,27,000 - ₹ 77,000 = ₹ 1,50,000/- 15. In view of the discussion made herein-above in paras 12 and 13, the appeal preferred by the claimant Ashish Kumar Baghel for enhancement of compensation on account of injuries sustained by him [MAC/38/2022] is allowed in part. Accordingly, the amount of compensation of ₹1,09,607/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹5,23,290/-. Hence, the appellant is entitled for an additional amount of ₹4,13,683/-. Rest of the conditions of the award impugned shall remain intact. The Insurance Company is directed to make payment of additional compensation assessed herein-above within period of 60 days. 16. Likewise, in view of the discussion made herein-above in para 14, the appeal preferred by the claimant- Arman Nag for enhancement of compensation on injuries sustained by him [MAC/39/2022] is allowed in part. Accordingly, the amount of compensation of ₹ 77,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹2,27,000-. Hence, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of ₹1,50,000/-. Rest of the conditions of the award 8 impugned shall remain intact. The Insurance Company is directed to make payment of additional compensation assessed herein- above within period of 60 days. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim