1 2026:CGHC:26647 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1452 of 2024 Brijlal @ Teras Bhariya S/o Suddhu Sonwani, aged about 34 Years R/o Village Kudkai, P.S. and Tahsil- Pendra, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Now District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi) ... Appellant versus 1 - Sandeep Kumar Kashyap S/o Garudayal, aged about 42 Years R/o Village Kudkai, P.S. and Tahsil- Marwahi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Now District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi). (Driver Of Offending Vehicle) 2 - Jeevanlal S/o Shivdayal Kashyap, aged About 68 Years R/o Village Kudkai, P.S. and Tahsil- Marwahi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Now District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi), (Owner of Offending Vehicle). 3 - Cholamandlam General Insurance Company Limited Near Vinayak Netralaya, Vyapar Bihar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of Offending Vehicle) ... Respondents For the Appellant : Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate For respondent No.3 : Ms. Aditi Diwan, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 30/ 6 /2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed challenging the award dated 21.09.2023 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pendra Road Chhattisgarh, in Claim Case No. 07/2020. By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 7,69,800/-- as compensation to the claimant/appellant due to the injury and the disability caused to him. The ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.07.06 16:40:48 +0530 2 vehicle was insured with respondent no.3. 2. The compensation claim preferred by the applicant, in brief, is that on the date of the accident, i.e., 26.04.2018, the applicant was engaged in thrashing wheat on a threshing machine attached to Tractor bearing Registration No. CG-10/V-0580, owned by respondent No. 2. The said tractor was being driven by respondent No. 1. In such process, while the applicant along with other labourers, was feeding wheat into the thresher machine, respondent No. 1 accelerated the speed of the tractor in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the applicant’s right hand was drawn into the thresher machine, causing severe injuries to his right hand. He also sustained grievous injuries to his left leg and knee. After receiving primary treatment at the Community Health Centre, Pendra, the appellant was referred to Bilaspur for further treatment and thereafter was treated at C.I.M.T. Hospital, Raipur. During the course of treatment, his right hand had to be amputated below the elbow, rendering him permanently disabled. It is pleaded that owing to the injuries sustained to his waist and below the left knee, he is unable to walk properly and is no longer capable of performing any work. Prior to the accident, the applicant was employed as a tractor driver and also worked as a labourer, earning approximately Rs. 9,000/- per month. However, due to the permanent disability suffered in the accident, he has become incapable of undertaking any gainful employment. Thus the appellant has claimed a total compensation of Rs. 29,00,000/-. 3. The learned claims Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence brought on record and the pleadings made in application, took the monthly income of deceased as Rs.7800/- and worked out the annual income to be Rs. 93,600/- (7800 x 12). It further held that though the permanent disability is assessed at 70%, the applicant’s functional earning capacity is 40%. Accordingly, it held 3 that the applicant has suffered 40% loss of earning capacity on account of the permanent disability. The tribunal further granted 25% future prospects and thus worked out the total loss of income as Rs. 7,02,000/-. In addition, Rs.7800/- for loss of earning capacity during treatment; Rs.2000/- special diet expenses; Rs.5000 for attendant charges; Rs.3000/- for transportation expenses; Rs.50,000 for pain and suffering have been granted; thus a total compensation of Rs.7,69,800/- has been awarded. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimants submits that from the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced in the case, it stands proved that the appellant Brijlal, sustained 70% permanent disability in his right upper limb as a consequence of the accident and the Certificate issued by the Medical board (Ex.P-13) shows 70% of disability and because of amputation, he is unable able to perform the job of labour/driver. He submits that without looking to those aspects, the Tribunal has lowered the functional disability from 70% to 40% which cannot be allowed to sustain. Further the tribunal took the income of deceased as Rs.7800/- and added future prospects 25% which is on lower side. The future prospects added by the Tribunal is 25% and it should be 40%, thereby, it failed to award just compensation. He prays that this appeal may be allowed and amount of compensation may suitably be enhanced. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company/Non- applicant No. 3 has argued that the Claims Tribunal after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record rightly awarded the compensation amount which needs no interference. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of 4 awarded by the tribunal is just and proper in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 8. It appears that since the applicant has not produced any documentary evidence in support of the medical expenses incurred by him, the tribunal has not granted any sum towards medical expenses. 9. As regards the income of deceased, the claimants have pleaded that the appellant was earning monthly income of Rs.9,000/- per month by doing the job of labour and driver, but no documentary evidence in support thereof has been produced. However, this does not mean that the deceased was not at all earning anything from his work. Therefore in absence of any reliable evidence regarding income of deceased and keeping in mind the nature of occupation, date of accident, minimum wage rate structure prevailing on the date of accident and other relevant factors such as price index and cost of living etc, I find it appropriate to take income of deceased as Rs.8,100/- Thus the annual incomes comes to Rs.97,200/-. 10. Now coming to the future prospects, the Tribunal has meagerly added only 25%. The Tribunal held that the claimant belongs to the age group of 36 to 40 years. So considering the age group, the permanent disability sustained by him and the nature of his job, it would be just and proper to add 40% future prospects towards his income. Therefore, his total annual income would come to Rs. 1,36,080/- (97,200 plus 38,880) 11. As per the certificate (Ex.P-13) issued by the medical board, the disability of the applicant was 70%. P.W. 2 Dr. H. K. Tanwar has stated that after examining the amputation of injured’s right hand below elbow, the disability certificate was issued by the Medical Board. There was no possibility of any improvement in his disability which was permanent in nature. If such statement of doctor is minutely examined, it is clear that the 5 appellant would not be able to perform the job of manual labour / driver with only one hand, therefore, the amputation of his right hand below the elbow has substantially affected his earning capacity. Accordingly having regard to Ex.P-13 it would be appropriate to consider that the appellant has suffered 70% loss of earning on account of functional disability instead of 40% as held by the Tribunal. Consequently, there is annual loss of income of Rs. 95,256/- being 70% of Rs.1,36,080/-. 12. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corpn. AIR 2009 SC 3104, the appropriate multiplier applicable to the said age group is 15. Accordingly, the loss of earning capacity is calculated as Rs. 14,28,840 (95,256 x 15). Thus this Court is recomputing the compensation in the following manner : 1. Loss of total earning capacity Rs.14,28,840/- 2. Loss of income during treatment Rs. 10,000/- 3. Medical treatment expenses Rs. 1,00,000/- 4. Special diet expenses Rs. 10,000/- 5. Attendant charges Rs. 10,000/- 6. Transportation expenses Rs. 10,000/- 7. Physical pain, mental agony and suffering Rs. 1,00,000/- Total Rs.16,68,840/- 13. Thus the total compensation is recomputed to Rs.16,68,840/-- from which after deduction of Rs. 7,69,800/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.8,99,040/- which the claimant is entitled to receive in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of enhancement of the award till its realisation. 6 14. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 15. The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of para-legal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area where the claimants reside. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge Rao