1 CGHC010429652024 2026:CGHC:37676 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2328 of 2024 Harishchandra @ Harish Sonwani S/o Dayalu Ram Sonwani, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Banbaghera, Police Station Somni, Tahsil and District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ------(Claimant) ... Appellant versus 1 - Salim Ansari S/o Budhaniya, Aged About 35 Years By Caste- Musalman, R/o Village-Dubadih, Police Station-Markacho, District- Kotmana (Jharkhand) ----(Driver of Offending Vehicle Container Bearing Registration No. PB-11-AU-7625). 2 - Rohit Singh Tomar S/o Munna Singh Tomar, Aged About 48 Years R/o 603, 606, 6th Floor Vipul Trade Center Sector-48, Gudgaon, Hariyana 122001, Power Of Attorney Jaisingh S/o Jaspal Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Ward No. 28 Shankar Nagar, Dev Baroda Bhilai, Police Station- Bhilai-3, District-Durg (C.G.) ----(Owner of Offending Vehicle Container Bearing Registration No. PB-11-AU-7625). 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Railway Station Road Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ----(Insurer of Offending Vehicle Container Bearing Registration No. PB-11-AU-7625) ... Respondents For the appellant : Mrs. Khushbu Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent no.3 : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 21.08.2026 1 This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed by the claimant (injured) seeking enhancement of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 25.01.2024 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) in MACT No.60/2022 whereby a total compensation of Rs.13,42,631/- has been awarded to the claimant for the damages caused to him. 2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the claim application are that on 10.09.2021, appellant Harishchandra @ Harish Sonwani along with his friend Radheshyam Sahu was returning to their village Banabghera from village Begtola on Motorcycle No.C.G-08-U/0322. On the way when they reached near Kuteri Chowk, respondent no.1 driving the offending vehicle i.e., Container No.PB-11-AU-7625 in rash and negligent manner hit the motor cycle, due to which, the rider of motorcycle Radheshyam died on the spot while the appellant Harishchandra @ Harish sustained grievous injuries. He filed a claim petition seeking a total compensation of Rs.25 lakhs on various heads. 3. After evaluating the documents and evidence, the Tribunal has granted a total compensation of Rs.13,42,631/- has been awarded to the claimant on various heads as per the following table : Sl.No Head Amount 01. Loss of future income 12,36,480/- 02. Loss of actual income during treatment 18,400/- 03. Attendant charges 15,000/- 3 04. Nutritious food 12.000/- 05. Mental pain and suffering 25,000/- 06. Future treatment expenses 20,000/- 07. Transportation charges 10,000/- 07. For treatment bills 5,751/- Total Rs. 13,42,631/- 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as per disability certificate (Ex.P-23) proved by Dr. B.K. Banerjee, the disability of the appellant was 75% whereas the Tribunal has considered only 50% disability, thereby the income lost has been assessed on lower side. He further submits that the income of claimant taken by the Tribunal is also on lower side, therefore, just compensation has not been awarded. He prays that the appeal be allowed and the award of compensation be suitably enhanced. 5. Learned counsel for respondent no.3/Insurer submits that the disability certificate (Ex.P-23) was issued by Dr. B.K. Banerjee, Rajnandgaon and not by the Medical Board, therefore, the said certificate cannot be taken the basis while assessing the income lost due to disability. He further submits that the Doctor (A.W.2) who treated the appellant has categorically deposed that his temporary disability was found to be 75% in relation to his brain and not to the whole body, therefore, the Tribunal has wrongly considered the disability in his whole body as 50%. It is also submitted that the income of deceased taken by the Tribunal is also on higher side. He therefore submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side and the award be modified to that extent. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. The Tribunal found that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1, as a result of which, the appellant who 4 was travelling on the motor cycle has sustained serious injuries. It further found that there was no breach of terms of insurance policy. 8. To prove the functional disability, claimant has produced the certificate ( Ex.P-23-C) issued by CMHO, Rajnandgaon, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities. Dr. B.K. Banerjee (A.W.2) who treated the claimant has proved it as Ex.P-23-C. He has deposed that claimant’s case was found to be mental illness; his temporary disability was 75% and the said certificate is valid for 3 years. On the basis of evidence of Doctor (A.W.2) the Tribunal observed that though the claimant has suffered a 75% disability in relation to the mental illness, but the said disability was not meant for the entire body and the claimant has been advised to determine the percentage of disability again after three years. The claimant himself has examined as A.W.1. The Tribunal has minutely considered his evidence regarding the incident and observed that the claimant has been able to think, understand and answer the questions during his examination. Therefore, on the above grounds, the Tribunal reduced the whole-body permanent disability to 50% because the claimant answered questions logically during his examination, proving the illness did not completely incapacitate his entire body. Such finding of tribunal cannot be said to be unreasonable or unjustified. 9. The claimant pleaded that he was earning Rs.60,000 – 70,000/- by doing the job of driver. He has stated in his evidence that he had been working in Singhania Company as driver of 12 wheeler truck for the past 10 years. However, he did not produce any document to this effect. Therefore, in absence of any admissible evidence, the Tribunal has properly taken claimant’s monthly income as Rs.9,200/- treating him as unskilled labour as per the notification of labour commissioner and the Order of Collector’s 5 Office, Rajnandgaon, which cannot be said to be on lower side. Thus the annual income is worked out to Rs.1,10,400/- (9,200 x 12). The age of claimant was found to be 32 years. Following the principle laid down in Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 and in National Insurance Co. Versus Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) SCC Online SC 1270, the Tribunal has correctly added 40% future prospects to the income and applied the multiplier of 16. After adding 40% future prospects i.e., 44,160, the gross annual income comes to Rs.1,54,560/- (1,10,400/- plus 44,160) Since the permanent disability in whole body of the claimant was determined as 50% by Tribunal , the annual loss of income capacity to that extent would come to Rs.77,280/-. Thus the Tribunal has rightly assessed the total loss of future earning at Rs.12,36,480/- by applying multiplier 16 (77,280 x 16). Besides, under the other heads the Tribunal has adequately granted Rs.1,33,857/- for treatment expenses; Rs.2,00,000/- for physical and mental agony, Rs.20,000/- for special diet; Rs. 40,000/- for attendant charges; Rs.2,00,000/- for future treatment, attendant charges and special diet and Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of amenities/physical comforts. 10. The Insurance Company did not challenge the quantum of award by filing cross appeal. Hence, it is not necessary to lower the award. 11. Since the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is neither lesser nor inadequate, I am not inclined to modify the award. 12. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge Rao