1 CGHC010175552021 2026:CGHC:35630 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 394 of 2021 Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office, Through Manager 205, Second Floor, M.M. Silver Plaza, In Front Of Udyog Bhawan, Near Mining Office, Ring Road No. 1, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ... Appellant versus 1 - Leena Sahu D/o Late Hemant Sahu Aged About 20 Years Guardian Shri Rajesh Lajar, R/o House No. 177, Dewangan Gali, Shantinagar Ward No. 25, Near Barnas Garrage, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh. Through Next Friend Smt. Manjulata Lajar W/o Shri Rajesh Lajar, Aged About 40 Years, R/o 177, Dewangan Gali Shantinagar Ward No. 25, Near Barnas Garrage, Jagdalpur , District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) 2 - Ranu Mandavi S/o Lakma Mandavi Aged About 33 Years Caste Madiya, R/o Village Raikot , Post Office And Police Station Kodenar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh . (Owner Cum Driver) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Adv. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Abhishek Nirala, Adv. On behalf of Mr. PK Tulsyan, Adv. For Respondent No.2 : None SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.08.13 17:00:27 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (12.08.2026) 1. This is an appeal preferred by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 19.03.2021 passed by the II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 14/2019, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,12,766/- (due to typographical error wrongly typed as 2,21,766/-) in favour of respondent No.1 Smt. Leena Sahu/claimant. The claimant was aged about 20 years, was deaf and dumb, and sustained injuries in a road accident which took place on 27.04.2017. The Tribunal has jointly and severally fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company/appellant herein, Hence this appeal for pay and recover. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances of the case found that there was a breach of insurance policy despite of that jointly fastened the liability upon the insurance company. Hence, it is prayed that an order of pay and recover may be passed. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 raised no objection on the above point. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and perused the records with due care and caution. 5. The Claims Tribunal found a breach of the policy conditions inasmuch as, at the time of the accident, the driver Ranu Mandavi did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. However, the Tribunal did not pass an order 3 for “pay and recover” as prayed for by the appellant before this Court. In view of the above, and applying the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manuara Khatun and Others Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh and Others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 796, I direct the Appellant/Insurance Company to first pay the amount of compensation and thereafter recover the same from the owner cum driver of the offending vehicle by filing an execution petition before the concerned Claims Tribunal. CROSS APPEAL FILED BY THE CLAIMANT 6. Learned Counsel for the claimant has argued that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding inadequate compensation. The appellant sustained fracture of the femur bone in the accident and remained admitted in the hospital for about 48 days. The Tribunal has assessed the disability of claimant Leena Sahu at only 15% whereas it ought to have been assessed at 30%. The Tribunal has awarded a meager amount under the heads of medical expenses, transportation, special diet, attendant charges, future medical treatment and physical and mental agony. Furthermore, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of income during treatment. Therefore, it is prayed that the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal be suitably enhanced. 7. Learned counsel for respondent/insurance company on the above points would submit that the Claims Tribunal after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record rightly awarded the compensation amount. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just 4 and proper and requires no interference. 8. The accident took place on 27.04.2017. In the present case, it is true that the learned Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the claimant to be Rs. 4,000/-, which ought to be Rs. 9,360/- per month and Rs. 1,12,320/- per annum as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by the Office of the Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. 9. As per the testimony of Dr. L.L. Thakur (AW-2) and as per the discharge tickets (Ex.A-10 & Ex.A-11), the claimant sustained fracture of the femur bone and remained hospitalized for 48 days . The disability certificate (Ex.P-13) assesses 45% permanent disability in respect of a single limb. However, the Tribunal has restricted the same to 15% disability for the whole body and awarded Rs. 1,29,600/- towards compensation on account of disability. Considering that the claimant was unable to perform her work due to the injuries sustained by her, in the considered opinion of this Court, the permanent disability ought to be assessed at 20% instead of 15%. Accordingly, the compensation on account of permanent disability ought to be calculated as (Rs. 1,12,320 x 20/100) x 18 = Rs. 4,04,352/-. 10. The claimant remained hospitalized for about 48 days. In view of the nature of injuries i.e. fracture of femur bone, she was unable to work for approximately 6 months. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of income during the period of treatment and convalescence, which ought to be Rs. 56,160/- [Rs. 9,360 x 6 months]. 11. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 52,166/- towards medical expenses, which ought to be Rs. 60,000/-, as there are certain bills and expenses which could not be 5 preserved. Furthermore, the amounts awarded under other conventional heads are also on the lower side. Considering the nature of injuries, period of hospitalization and treatment, the compensation deserves to be re-assessed as under: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1 compensation on account of permanent disability Rs. 1,29,600/- Rs. 4,04,352/- 2 Medical Expenses Rs. 52,166/- Rs. 60,000/- 3 Future Medical Expenses Rs.10,000/- Rs. 50,000/- 4 Physical and mental agony Rs.10,000/- Rs. 50,000/- 5 Special diet and for attendant charges Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 50,000/- 6 Towards Transportation Rs.1,000/- Rs. 10,000/- 7 loss of income during the period of treatment and convalescence NA Rs.56,160/- Total Rs. 2,12,766/- Rs. 6,80,512/- 12. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.2,12,766/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal to the claimant is enhanced to Rs.6,80,512/-. Hence, the claimant is held entitled for an additional 6 amount of Rs.4,67,746/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application before the Claims Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and the cross appeal filed by the claimant are partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. 14. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimant in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the concerned Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co- ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimant resides. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge -Shubham