1 CGHC010412682024 2026:CGHC:31153 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2235 of 2024 Mohd. Kutubuddin Ansari S/o Mohd. Almuddin Ansari, Aged About 39 Years R/o Jyoti Nagar Deepka, Tahsil- Deepka, District- Korba ( C.G.). Clamant ... Appellant versus 1 - Sunil Kumar S/o Ramanand Singh Aged About 37 Years R/o Bhavviaa, Police Station- Parunagar, District- Aurangabad, Bihar Present Resident Of Lamba Transport, T.P. Nagar Korba, District- Korba ( C.G.). Respondents Non Applicant No. 1/ Driver Of Truck No. C.G. 12/s/ 2164 2 - Sardar Singh Lamba S/o Nekiram Lamba R/o M.I.G. II/25, Ravishankar Shukl Nagar Korba, Tahsil And District- Korba ( C.G.). Non Applicant No. 2/ Owner Of Truck No. C.G. 12/S/ 2164 3 - Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through- Divisional Manger, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Division Office Geetanjali Bhawan, Old Bus Stand Korba, Tahsil And District- Korba ( C.G.). Non Applicant No. 3/ Insurer Of Truck No. C.G. 12/S/ 2164 ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents : None BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.07.24 11:08:11 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 22/07/2026 1. Heard on I.A. No.01/2024, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. It is a claimant’s appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 3. Upon due consideration, I.A. No. 01 is allowed and the delay of 203 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. 4. Heard on admission. 5. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act of 1988") has been preferred by the injured appellant assailing the award dated 31.01.2024 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba (CG) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 35/2021, whereby a total compensation of 3,65,652/- has ₹ been awarded for the injuries sustained by the appellant in a road accident that occurred on 30.11.2019. 6. Learned Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, assessed the compensation as under: S.N. Head Calculation 1 Certified Income of Applicant/Injured Rs. 8,970/- per month 8,970/- x 12 = Rs. 1,07,640/- per annum 2 Age of Applicant / Injured at the time of accident was 43 years, Hence, compensation Rs. 1,07,640/- x 14 = 15,06,960/- 3 after applying multiplier of 14 3 Loss of income due to 20% disability 20% of 15,06,960 =3,01,392/- 4 Medical Expenses incurred by Applicant/Injured 43,290.10/- 5 Loss of income during hospitalization 8,970/- 6 Nutritious Diet 3,000/- 7 Attendant Charges during treatment 3,000/- 8 Pain and Suffering & Mental Agony 5,000/- 9 Transportation during treatment 1,000/- Total Awarded Amount Rs.3,65,652.10/- 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the appellant's claim that he was earning 15,000/- per month as a driver employed with a ₹ private firm. It is further contended that although the appellant suffered 23% permanent disability on account of the accident, the Tribunal has erroneously assessed the disability at only 20% while computing the compensation. It is also submitted that inadequate compensation has been awarded under the other conventional heads. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned award be modified by suitably enhancing the compensation. 8. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents. 4 9. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 10. The claimed monthly salary of ₹15,000 has been disbelieved. It is noteworthy that the injured appellant has been stated to be a driver by profession; however, no driving licence has been brought on record. In such circumstance, the Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the salary certificate produced him. Accordingly, the income of the appellant has been reasonably assessed by the Tribunal at 8,970 per month. ₹ 11. So far as the assessment of permanent disability is concerned, although the disability certificate indicates 23% permanent disability, the Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, has assessed the functional disability at 20% for the purpose of determining compensation. The said assessment does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. Likewise, the compensation awarded under the other heads is found to be just and reasonable, and no case for enhancement is made out. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and upon a careful examination of the evidence available on record, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or error in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal warranting interference. 5 13. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed at motion stage. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai