1 2026:CGHC:26927 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2169 of 2019 The New India Assurance Company Limited, Through Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office - Hotel Laxman Avenue, Krishi Upaj Mandi Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Durga Prasad Gupta, S/o. Chandrika Prasad Gupta, Aged About 35 Years, R/o. Durga Medical Stores, Balaji Ward, SBI Road, Jagadalpur, Police Station - City Kotwali, Jagdalpur, Tahsil - Jagadalpur, District – Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Gajendra Prasad Yadav, S/o. Shri Shiv Sagar Prasad Yadav, Aged About 27 Years, R/o. Kusumar, Police Station Akbarpur, District – Nehawala, 154 A.D.T. Road, Kolkata, 180 West Bengal ( Driver ) 3 - Mahua Malik, W/o. Rajiv Malik, R/o. Govindpur, Karigarpara, Post Office - Kolaput, West 24 Pargana, 74376 Pared Road, West Begal. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Manohar Dewangan, Advocate ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.07.02 17:01:55 +0530 2 (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 01.07.2026 1. The appellant/insurance company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 04.07.2019 passed by learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (for short “the Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.172/2015 by which the claim application of the claimant is allowed and an amount of Rs. 66,67,115/- has been awarded to the claimant as compensation. 2. The claimant /respondent No.1 has also filed a cross objection for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 3. The appeal of the insurance company and cross-objection of the claimant/ respondent No.1 both have been heard together and disposed of by this common order. 4. For the functional disability of the claimant to the extent of 45%, the following compensation has been awarded. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal For loss of income due to permanent disability Rs. 50,08,256.00 3 For medical expenses Rs. 13,45,164.00 For physical and mental agony Rs. 20,000.00 For future medical expenses Rs. 2,00,000.00 For loss of income due treatment Rs. 50,000.00 For transportation expenses Rs. 33,695.00 For attendant Rs. 10,000.00 Total Rs. 66,67,115.00 5. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant/ insurance company, would submit that the Claims Tribunal has erred in assessing the functional disability of the claimant to be 45%, which is on the higher side. It is contended that the assessment of functional disability deserves to be reduced and, consequently, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is liable to be reduced proportionately. 6. Mr. Manohar Dewangan, learned counsel for the claimant/ respondent No.1, would submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is not just and proper, therefore, it deserves to be enhanced. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records meticulously. 4 8. Dr. L.S. Thakur (AW-3), who has proved the permanent disability certificate (Ex.A-248), clearly stated that the claimant had suffered 45% functional disability. Accordingly, the Tribunal has rightly taken the functional disability to be 45%. Therefore, taking the annual income of the claimant at Rs. 6,95,592/-, the Tribunal has deducted 55% therefrom and assessed 45% annual loss of earning capacity i.e. Rs. 3,13,016/- and by applying the multiplier of 16, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 50,08,256/- towards loss of income due to permanent disability. The said assessment is just & proper and in accordance with law, and therefore warrants no interference. 9. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that no amount had been awarded towards future medical expenses. However, a perusal of the record reveals that the Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards future medical expenses. Accordingly, the cross-objection has no merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. 10. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the insurance company and also the cross-objection filed by the claimant/ respondent No.1, accordingly both deserve to be and are hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok