1 CGHC010453532024 2026:CGHC:36339 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 239 of 2025 Rajesh Kumar Singh S/o Badhu Singh Aged About 39 Years R/o Kirodimal Nagar, Raigarh, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Claimant) ... Appellant versus 1 - Anil Kumar Singh S/o Daulat Singh Rajput Aged About 29 Years R/o Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh (Driver of Car Bearing Registration No. CG-10-AA-6113) 2 - Ravindra Kumar Gupta S/o Saryu Prasad Gupta Aged About 62 Years R/o B-30 Sagar Homes Phase-2, Ward No. 9, Sakri, Tahsil and District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Owner of Car Bearing Registration No. CG-10-AA-6113). 3 - Manager I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company, House No. 414, Veer Sawarkar Road, Near Siddhi Vinayak Manidr, Mumbai (Maharashtra) (Insurer of Car Bearing Registration No. CG-10-AA- 6113) ... Respondents For the appellant : Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Gunjan Rani Agrawal, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Shekhar Rao Saheb Amin, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 14.08.2026 2 1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation and challenging the impugned award dated 12.03.2024 passed by the learned 1st Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) in Claim Case No.06/2022 whereby a total compensation of Rs.11,91,028/- has been awarded for the injuries and damages caused to the the claimant. 2. As per the facts pleaded in claim petition, on 07.06.2016 the injured appellant Rajesh Kumar Singh was returning from his work place of Jindal Company on his motorcycle. When he reached the Jindal Gate STP barrier he was hit by a Maruti Car bearing Regn.No. CG-10-AA-6113 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. As a result of the accident, the appellant suffered serious injuries on his head, right eye, right leg and hand. Considering the gravity of injuries, the doctors opined that the appellant’s right eye was completely lost due to the accident, which has caused permanent disability. 3. On a close scrutiny of evidence and documents placed on record, the Tribunal has granted a total compensation of Rs.11,91,028/- on various heads as per the following table : S.N o. Head Amount Rs. 01. Medical bills regarding treatment 3,49,828/- 02. Physical pain and mental agpmu 50,000/- 03. Loss of future earning 6,91,200/- 04. Nutritious food 50,000/- 05. Transportation and attendant charges 50,000/- 3 Total Rs. 11,91,028/- 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant was earning Rs.35,000/- per month by doing the job in a private company. He contends that though the tribunal has held that Jindal doctors’ prescriptions confirms the appellants’ employment with the Jindal Company as per the employee code shown in Ex.P-30 , however, the salary slip (Ex.P-50) produced by him was not considered by the Tribunal and on mere assumption, it took the meagre income of claimant at Rs.12,000/- per month which cannot be allowed to sustain. He next submits that the amounts granted under other heads are also lesser, as such, the award is liable to be enhanced. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that the tribunal has awarded just compensation which needs no interference. 6. The appellant has produced the disability certificate (Ex.P-49) issued by the competent medical authority which shows he has suffered 30% permanent disability i.e., low vision in his right eye. To prove this document, the appellant has examined Dr. Meena Patel as A.W.2. She has testified that appellant had appeared before the Medical Board, Raigarh on 18.11.2019 and upon examination he was found to be suffering from optic atrophy in his right eye and accordingly, he was granted 30% permanent disability certificate. Therefore, the tribunal has rightly considered the disability to the extent of 30% for determining the loss of earning. 7. Now coming to the income of deceased, the appellant has 4 produced the Pay Slip (Ex.P-50) along with claim petition which shows that the appellant’s total salary was above Rs.25,789/- and after necessary deductions of Rs. Rs.11,959/ he used to get net pay of Rs.13,830. However, the Tribunal held that except his oral statements, the applicant has not presented any substantial evidence which can prove his actual income. Therefore, in absence of any evidence regarding his earnings vide Ex.P-50, the Tribunal took the income of claimant to be Rs.12,000/- per month and thus his annual earning was Rs.1,44,000/- (Rs.12000 x 12). 8. The age of deceased was found to be 33 years, therefore, applying the multiplier 16. the total income was worked out to Rs. 23,04,000/-. Since the appellant suffered 30% disability, the loss of earning was calculated as Rs.6,91,000/-. 9. Further, the appellant claimed that he has incurred expenses of Rs.10 lakhs for medical treatment for the injuries sustained in the accident, but no witness has been examined regarding the amount spent on treatment. However, the bills relating to treatment and medicines have been submitted vide Ex.P-08 to Ex.P-25, which upon examination of relevant document submitted , reveal a total of Rs. 3,49,828/-. Therefore, the said amount has been justly granted by the Tribunal. 10. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that according to the Pay Slip (Ex.P-50) the appellant was working in Shikar Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd., Raigarh (C.G) and because of the accident, he lost the employment, thereby his income has been 5 decreased. In absence of any evidence placed before the Tribunal, I am not inclined to accept the contention that because of the accident his income has been decreased and the award passed by the Tribunal is inadequate. 11. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the award passed by the tribunal cannot be said to be unjust or unreasonable warranting interference by this Court in the instant appeal. 12. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge Rao