1 CGHC010118052023 2026:CGHC:29808 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 625 of 2023 The National Insurance Company Limited 13, Meenu Complex, Main Road Kosabari, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.............(Insurance Company) ... Appellant versus 1 - Mukund Kumar Kedia S/o Late Shri Haribaksh Kedia Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward No.18, Darra Road, Station Para, Sakti, Police Station And Tehsil Sakti, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh................(Claimant) 2 - Mahabir Prasad Gond S/o Gagan Singh Gond Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Sidhapath, Tehsil Kartala, Police Station Urga Outpost, District Korba, Chhattisgarh............(Driver) 3 - Smt. Meeradevi Gupta W/o Rajkumar Gupta Aged About 51 Years R/o House No.157 Gevra, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh..............(Vehicle Owner) ... Respondents Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 _________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Aakash Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.N. Pusty, Advocate For Respondents : None. _________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. Judgment on Board (14.07.2026) 1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 06.02.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 52/2019. 2. As against compensation of Rs. 92,57,000/- claimed by the respondent No.1/claimant by filing claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (henceforth ‘the Act’) in the motor accident on 05.04.2016, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.18,99,873/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum in favour of the claimant. 3. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held: the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No. CG-12-S-3168 by its driver, Mahaveer Prasad Gond (Respondent No. 2). As a consequence of the accident, Mukund Kumar Kedia (Respondent No. 1) sustained a permanent disability of 40% in his left leg.; the appellant/insurance company held liable for payment of compensation; assessed and awarded the aforesaid sum as compensation in favour of claimant/injured. Hence, the appeal. 3 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation of Rs. 18,99,873/- in favour of the claimant/respondent No.1. He further submits that the learned Tribunal, while computing the compensation, erroneously assessed the loss of income as 100% instead of 20%, thereby awarding excessive compensation to the claimant. Therefore, it appears that the aforesaid compensation amount has been awarded needs to be reduced. Thus, the appeal is liable to be allowed and modified the impugned award. 5. No one appeared on behalf of the respondents during the final hearing of this case. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and perused the award impugned including the record of the Tribunal. 7. The Tribunal, on the basis of the income tax return filed by the claimant, assessed his annual income at Rs. 4,66,356/-. It further added 25% towards future prospects, amounting to Rs. 1,16,589/-, thereby determining the claimant's annual income total Rs. 5,82,945/-. According to the medical evidence, the claimant had sustained a permanent disability of 40% in his left leg. Relying upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Another, reported in 2011 (1) A.C.C.D. 475 (S.C.), the Tribunal assessed the permanent disability affecting the claimant's loss of income at 20%. Accordingly, the annual loss of income was calculated at 20% of Rs. 5,82,945/-, i.e., Rs. 4 1,16,589/-.The Tribunal assessed the age of the claimant 45 years on the date of the accident and, accordingly, applied the multiplier of 14. Taking the annual loss of income at Rs. 1,16,589/-, the Tribunal calculated the loss of income total Rs. 16,32,246/- (Rs. 1,16,589 × 14). In addition thereto, it awarded Rs. 2,26,729/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 2,250/- towards attendant charges, Rs. 5,000/- towards special diet, Rs. 20,000/- towards physical and mental agony, and Rs. 13,648/- towards transportation expenses. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 18,99,873/- in favour of the claimant. 8. In the case in hand, considering the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and taking note that the claimant/injured, who was owner/partner of the Rice Mill, as a result of the said accident, he sustained permanent disability in his left leg, therefore, this Court finds that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is not on the higher side. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the manner in which the compensation has been calculated, the arguments raised by counsel for the appellant are not found acceptable. 9. In the view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court does not see any illegality on the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal, which does not call for any interference. 5 10. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Records of the Tribunal along with a copy of this judgment be sent forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge AMIT PATEL