1 2026:CGHC:19201 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 309 of 2022 1 - Manager District Co -Operative Central Bank, Having Its Head Office At Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Owner) ... Appellant versus 1 - Raja Shikari S/o Raju Shikari Aged About 8 Years Through His Guradian Father Raju Shikari, Son Of Shri Mathura Prasad, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Matiyari, Shikari Para, House No. 40 Ward No. 15, P.O. Joji, Thana Seepat, District Bilaspur Pin 495001. 2 - Dinesh Kumar Tiwari S/o Late Shri Gajanand Tiwari Aged About 60 Years Driver By Profession, R/o Singhanpuri, Thana Kawardha, District Kawardha Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At Om Zone Shubham Vihar, Bilaspur Thana Civil Lines, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur. Pin Code 495001. (Driver) 3 - Zonal Manager United India Insurance Company Limited, Zonal Office At Gurukripa Towers, 2nd Floor, In Front Of Ambar Automobiles, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur Pin 495001. (Insurance Company) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Abhyuday Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. B. N. Nande, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board 25.04.2026 1) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been preferred by the appellant, being aggrieved by the award dated 14.12.2021 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.) (for short “the learned Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 737/2018. HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2026.05.05 17:01:38 +0530 2 2) A claim application under Section 166 of the MV Act was filed by respondent No. 1/claimant seeking compensation of Rs. 11,10,000/- inter alia pleading that he met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. Safari bearing registration No. CG-10-FA-1810, driven by respondent No. 2, owned by the appellant and insured with respondent No. 3. On account of the said accident, the respondent No.1/claimant sustained grievous injuries and remained admitted in the hospital from 13.06.2018 to 21.06.2018 and thereafter from 03.08.2018 to 09.08.2018. It was further pleaded that as a result of the accident, he suffered permanent disability and accordingly claimed the aforesaid compensation. 3) The claim application was resisted by the appellant as well as by the respective respondents on various grounds. Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company in particular took a plea regarding violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. 4) The learned Tribunal framed the issues and decided the same in favour of respondent No. 1/claimant. However, while deciding Issue No. 3 relating to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the same was decided in favour of respondent No. 3/Insurance Company and against the appellant. Consequently, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,57,160/- and exonerated the Insurance Company directing the appellant and respondent No. 2 to pay the aforesaid compensation jointly and severally. 5) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company on Issue No. 3 is bad in law. He submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to properly appreciate the 3 facts, circumstances and evidence brought on record. Hence, the exoneration of the Insurance Company deserves to be set aside. 6) Learned counsel for respondent No. 1/claimant submits that the claimant has filed a cross-objection under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure for enhancement of compensation. It is contended that the compensation awarded is on the lower side. The claimant suffered 40% permanent disability, and though he was a young boy aged about 8 years at the time of the accident, his notional income has been assessed at only Rs. 4,500/- per month. Considering the date of the accident, it is submitted that the compensation requires enhancement. 7) Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 3/Insurance Company submits that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident. He further submits that the earlier driving licence held by respondent No. 2 had expired prior to the date of the accident and therefore the finding recorded on Issue No. 3 is justified and calls for no interference. 8) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record. 9) First, this Court would deal with the submission of learned counsel for the appellant as to whether the learned Tribunal was justified in deciding Issue No. 3 in favour of respondent No. 3/Insurance Company. Respondent No. 3 took a specific plea that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. In order to substantiate the said plea, respondent No. 3 examined Umesh Kumar Tripathi RTO employee (AW-1) who deposed that reports Ex. D/1 and D/2 were issued from his office and that 4 the driving licence of respondent No. 2 was valid from 19.11.2012 to 18.11.2017 and was thereafter renewed from 15.06.2018 to 14.06.2023. The date of the accident being 13.06.2018, it is evident that on the said date the licence was not valid. This fact is further corroborated by another witness namely Deepak Sindhu (AW-2) Assistant Manager who deposed that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3 vide Ex. D/3 and that as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the driver was required to hold a valid and effective driving licence. According to the RTO reports (Ex. D/1 and D/2), the licence was not valid on the date of the accident. 10) The learned Tribunal on the basis of the aforesaid evidence recorded a categorical finding that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence on the date of the accident. The said finding appears to be based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record. This Court is not persuaded to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the finding is perverse or contrary to the record. Accordingly, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant is rejected and the finding recorded on Issue No. 3 by the learned Tribunal is hereby affirmed. 11) This brings this Court to the submission advanced on behalf of respondent No. 1/claimant as to whether the compensation awarded is just and reasonable. The claimant was about 8 years of age at the time of the accident. A disability certificate (Ex. P/30) was duly proved by examining Dr. S.K. Chandel (AW-3) who deposed that the claimant suffered 40% permanent disability in his leg. The learned Tribunal, upon appreciation of the medical evidence concluded that the said disability pertained only to the right toes and not to the entire body. Accordingly, for the purpose of assessing functional disability, the learned Tribunal assessed the same at 20% with respect to the whole body. The 5 learned Tribunal has meticulously examined all aspects of the matter including the medical evidence and recorded the aforesaid finding. In the opinion of this Court, the said finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence and does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the same is hereby affirmed. 12) The learned Tribunal assessed the notional income of the respondent No.1 claimant at Rs. 4,500/- per month. The date of the accident is 13.06.2018. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the income at such a low figure. It is pertinent to note that upon attaining majority, the respondent No. 1/claimant would have been gainfully employed and the disability suffered would have substantially affected his earning capacity. Therefore, considering the evidence available on record and the minimum wages prevailing at the relevant time, this Court is of the view that a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month can be safely taken as the notional income of the claimant. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to recompute the compensation as under:– S.N Particular Awarded by this Court 1. Monthly Income of the respondent No. 1/claimant 8,000/- 2. Future Prospects @ 40% 3,200/- 3. Total Income 11,200/- 4. Total Yearly Income 11,200 X12= 1,34,400/- 5. Functional disability 20% and loss of earning 1,34,400X20%= 26,880/- 6. Net Income 26,880/- 7. Multiplier of 15 applied to assess the loss of future earning capacity 26,880 X 15= 4,03,200/- 8. For Medical Treatment 65,000/- (As awarded by learned Tribunal) 9. For Mental and Physical Agony 10,000/- 10. For Nutritional diet 5,000/- (As awarded by learned Tribunal) 11. For Transportation and Attendant 10,000/- (5,000/- each) (As awarded by learned Tribunal) 12. For loss of amenities and enjoyment 10,000/- 6 Total compensation 5,03,200/- 13) For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 3,57,160/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 5,03,200/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 3,57,160/-, the respondent No.1/claimant held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 1,46,040/-. The additional amount shall carry interest @6% per anuum from the date of appeal i.e. 28.02.2022. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. 14) The appellant is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of sixty (60) days from today. 15) Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed and cross- objection filed the respondent No. 1/claimant is partly allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari