1 CGHC010181692024 2026:CGHC:41561 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1057 of 2024 Judgment Reserved on : 29.07.2026 Judgment Delivered on : 24.09.2026 • Ravishankar @ Ravi Sahu S/o Memlal Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Misda, Police Station Navagarh, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) At Present Resident Of Gandhi Nagar Birgaon, Police Station Urla, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1. Vijya Kumar Rai S/o Radhelal Rai Aged About 32 Years R/o House No. 295, Ward No. 18, Bhatapara Chhapora, Tahsil Malkha Road, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) (Driver And Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Bolero Car Registration Number Cg-11, Ar-3169) 2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Beside Vanijya Bhawan, Near Sai Mandir, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ..........Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Bolero Car Registration Number C. G.- 11, Ar-3169 ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas (CAV Order) 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Seventh Additional Motor Accident Claim MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2026.09.25 11:01:51 +0530 2 Tribunal, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 313/2020 in case of Ravishankar @ Ravi Sahu vs. Vijay Kumar Rai & Another on 22.03.2024. 2. The brief facts as reflected from the record of the case are that on 16.02.2020, information was received at Police Station Shivrinarayan regarding accident on Kera Road Shivrinayaran Bhoghapara main road. As per the information the deceased Ravi Sahu who was going by his motor cycle, at the same time a Bolero vehicle bearing No. CG 11 AR 3169, transporting vegetables, driven by the driver recklessly and negligently, dashed the injured, as a result of which injured sustained various injuries. The injured was referred to the Bilaspur Hospital and thereafter, for further treatment at Ramkrishna Care Hospital Raipur where his right leg above knee was amputated. On the basis of information, Crime No. 42/2020 was registered against the driver of Bolero Car for commission of offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. After usual investigation, charge-sheet was submitted before the criminal Court. 3. The appellant filed an application under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, before the Seventh Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) registered as Claim Case No. 313/2020 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 66,00,000/- along with interest @ of 12%. The learned tribunal vide its award dated 22.03.2024 has partly allowed the claim application and has directed the insurance company to pay Rs. 27, 51,100/- with 9% interest from 18.03.2020 till the actual payment is made. 3 The appellant was not satisfied with the award, therefore, he has filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding the less compensation to the appellant/claimant as due to the accident, the appellant has received permanent disability of 100%, but the same has been considered as 60%. The income of the appellant has not been properly calculated, whereas the appellant is earning Rs. 40,000/- per month, which is not extra-ordinary, but the learned claims tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant as Rs. 12,000/- per month without any rhyme and reason. She would further submit that looking to the injury sustained by the appellant, his working and earning capacity have been reduced to a great extent, as such his loss of 100% income ought to have been calculated by the learned Claims Tribunal. She would further submit that the learned claim tribunal also awarded less compensation on the head of medical expenses and hospital bills, which ought to have been enhanced suitably and should have calculated the future treatment expenditure, which is liable to be awarded suitably. The learned claim tribunal has awarded less interest @ 9% per annum, whereas the learned claim tribunal ought to have awarded interest @ 12% per annum and would pray for enhancing the compensation. To substantiate her submissions she has referred to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M. Paramesh vs. VRL Logistics Ltd. and Another, reported in 2026 INSC 655, Smt. Anjali & Others vs. Lokendra Rathod & Others, reported in 2022 LiveLaw SC 1012, 4 Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain vs. Regional Manager, U.P. State Board Transport Corporation, reported in 2023 (20) SCC 774. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2/Insurance company would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has already granted extravagant award in favour of the appellant, as such the award is not required to be enhanced as claim compensation cannot be bonanza, but it should be just proportionate and would pray for dismissal of the appeal. He would further submit that Ex. P/18 is a self assessment return of the appellant under the Income Tax Act, which should not be taken into consideration as the witness Mr. Jagdish Kumar Tanwar (PW-3), Income Tax Inspector has admitted in the cross-examination that with regard to entry made in the Income Tax Return the department has neither asked the assessee to submit relevant document nor they have verified the document as it was not within the zone of scrutiny under Income Tax Act. 6. He would further submit that the income tax return was prepared and submitted after the incident, as such, itself creates doubt. He would further submit that the appellant’s business will still continue, therefore, it cannot be held that he has lost 100% earning capacity and would submit that the 50% loss of income should have been considered by the claims tribunal, thus, prayer for 100% loss of earning capacity be kindly rejected and would pray for rejection of the appeal. To substantiate the submissions, he has referred to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rashmirekha Tripathy and Another vs. Branch Manager (Legal Claims), 5 Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Others, reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 1256 and referred to paragraphs 17 to 20, Sunil Kumar Kushwaha vs. Katragadda Satyanarayana and Another, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1038, M/s National Insurance Company Limited vs. Neeru Devi and Others decided on 15.12.2025, Sushma H.R. and Another vs. Deepak Kumar Jha & Others, reported in 2022 (4) TAC 422 SC, V. Subbulakshmi and Others vs. S. Lakshmi and Others, reported in 2008 (4) SCC 224. 7. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. From the submissions made by the parties, the point emerged for determination is “whether the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper or the award is liable to be enhanced by calculating the monthly income and was justified in recording loss of earning to the extent of 60% or was justified in not granting in actual medical expenses towards prosthetic leg as his right leg is amputated below the knee.” 9. From the evidence adduced by the appellant (PW-1), it is quite vivid that the right leg of the appellant above knee was crushed and subsequently amputated and got treatment at the Super Specialist Hospital RamKrishan Care Raipur and also submitted medical bills summary (Ex.P/7 to P/11) which is Rs. 1,81,985/- + 20,566+ 2060/- +471/- and from the statement of Dr. R.L Thakur (PW-2) Orthopedic specialist who has stated that the appellant has sustained 60% permanent disability as per the medical guidelines and also stated that the claimant is physically incapacitated and incompetent like 6 other fit person to perform his duty. Further from the evidence of Jagdish Kumar Tanwar (PW-3), the appellant has declared his income for the financial year 2018-19 i.e. assessment year 2019-20. On 14.03.2020 and according to the return he has shown his income Rs. 4,55,263/- and has paid the tax to the tune of Rs. 12,794/-. Thus, on the appreciation of evidence, the trial Court has recorded disability of the claimant to the extent of 60%. 10. It is essentially on a lower side as with a cross leg he will not be able to perform smoothly in his shop, as for attending every customer to give the material, he has to keep moving which is not physically possible for him and he needs a person to support him in the shop which requires payment of salary and other benefits to that person, therefore, the disability of the appellant has to be re-appreciated and assessed in the context of occupation of the appellant running the shop. Considering the fact that with one amputated leg it is difficult for him to run the shop, he needs a person who can assist him while running the shop, thus, his capacity to perform duty at the shop has drastically reduced and he will be dependable on other person, therefore, the functional disability of the appellant has to be taken properly and reasonably looking to the difficulty which the appellant is facing or may face in future. Considering the entirty of the fact and also taking into consideration that no actual assessment of difficulty can be visualized by the Court, but it has to be on ground reality which a person with an amputated leg may be faced. Taking into all the aspects of the matter and reality which may be faced by the appellant, this Court is of the view that assessment of disability to 7 the extent of 60% is on lower side and it needs enhancement to 75%. 11. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 in case of Sushil Kumar (Supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that functional disability of 60% is concerned, it has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in subsequent judgment in case of Shankar Dutt vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, reported in 2026 SCC Online 1193 and has further elaborated further suffering of person whose leg is amputated though his business may be continued. In the case of Shankar Dutt (Supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted 100% disability to the claimant who is Carpenter and in the present case the claimant is shop owner, therefore, prayer for 100% permanent disability cannot be granted. 12. This Court visualizing the difficulty of a shopkeeper while running his shop with one amputated leg which may difficult for him to manage his entire affairs and also considering that he would be dependable upon other person. As such there is a possibility of non-smooth functioning of the business as the amputation of a limbs from a human body has its own effect on the working ability, earning capacity and quality of life in general. Looking to the difficulties which the appellant may face, this Court thinks proper to enhance the disability from 60% to 75% as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shankar Dutt (Supra). Accordingly, the compensation has to be recalculate on the basis of disability to be 8 treated as 75%. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while examining the law on this subject has held in paragraphs 5.8 to 5.9 as under:- “Restoring Injured to sa me position 5.8 The compensation for the injured for his or her injuries and disability suffered, are classifiable into two heads, pecuniary and non-pecuniary. In Mohd. Sabeer alias Shabir Hussain (supra), this Court elaborately delineated the principles which may govern the determination of compensation towards both pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses, in cases of permanent disablement of the claimant. Both pecuniary damages and non- pecuniary compensation deserve to be granted to the claimant, stated this Court. The pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred, which are possible to be calculated in terms of money, whereas non- pecuniary damages are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. 5.8.1 The Court emphasized that in case of permanent disability, the claimant would be entitled to not just future loss of income but also future prospects. Mohd. Sabeer (supra) relied on the earlier judgment of this Court in Anant vs. Pratap and Another16 to reiterate that the purpose of fair compensation is to restore the injured to the position he was in prior to the accident as best as possible. 5.8.2 The following observations from Anant (supra) came to be highlighted by Mohd. Sabeer (supra), “ In cases of motor accidents leading to injuries and disablements, it is a well settled principle that a person must not only be compensated for his physical injury, but also for the non-pecuniary losses which he has suffered due to the injury. The claimant is entitled to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life and enjoy those things and amenities which he would have enjoyed, but for the injuries.” (Para 22). 5.8.3 Mohd. Sabeer (supra) followed the decision in R.D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others17, to reproduce the heads of pecuniary damages as well as the heads under the non-pecuniary damages to be considered as part of compensation to the injured who has 16 (2018) 9 SCC 450 17 (1995) 1 SCC 551 suffered from disability. The pecuniary damages, it was highlighted, comprised of expenses incurred by the claimant such as: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. Similarly, as far as the non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they would be under the heads of (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in the future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters that is on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of 9 expectation of life, that is, on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life. Expenses Towards Prosthetic Leg. 5.9 Amputation of a limb from the human body has its own effect on the working ability, earning capacity and quality of life in general. In the present case, half part of the right leg of the appellant is amputated and he has been using artificial leg. The prosthetic leg is not an all time same attachment. By its very nature that it is artificial, it would require replacement periodically. It would further need maintenance to keep it properly functional. The injured-appellant whose leg was amputated needs to be compensated on this score also.” 13. In the present case, one leg of the appellant has been amputated, as such, he needs an artificial limbs also, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded cost of the artificial limb, but has not awarded expenditure to be incurred in future for repair or replacement, therefore, expenditure for this head is also to be considered by this Court. 14. So far as medical expenses is concerned, the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the medical expenditure incurred by the appellant at the time of admission in the hospital to the tune of Rs. 1,81,985/- and for implanting the artificial limb i.e. leg, the estimate is Rs. 1,91,835/- and after adding both the heads awarded Rs. 3,73,820/-, but has not granted for periodical repair or replacement of the artificial limb which will be incurred in future. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shakar Dutt (Supra), it is necessary for this Court to adequately enhance the expenses for artificial limb from Rs. 1,91,835/- to Rs. 3,41,835/-. Thus, the appellant is entitled to get Rs. 1,50,000/- in addition to the medical expenses awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 10 15. So far as the finding of the learned Claims Tribunal with regard to age, monthly income, yearly income and future prospect remain the same as it has been assessed on due appreciation of facts, material on record and the law. Similarly, for application of multiplier of 18 and compensation for pain, shock and suffering are just proportionate and adequate in accordance with law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court on this subject, as such, does not warrant interference by this Court. 16. So far as loss of earning capacity, this Court after appreciating the evidence, law laid down and also taking into consideration the theory of restoring the injured to same position as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shankar Dutt (Supra) has enhanced loss of earning capacity from 60% to 75% as well as for granting compensation for periodical repair, replacement of artificial limb by remaining intact the compensation awarded to the appellant on other heads, accordingly, the compensation has to be recalculated as under: Sr. No. Heads Calculation 1. Age and marital status of injured/Disable person 25 years, married 2. Monthly Income of the injured person Rs. 12000/- 3. Yearly Income 12000X12 = Rs. 1,44,000/- 4. Additional Income towards future prospect (40%) 1,44,000X40% = 57,600/- 1,44,600+57,600 = Rs. 2,01,600/- 5. Loss of earning capacity 75% 2,01,600/-X75% = Rs.1,51,200/- 6. Compensation after Multiplier of 18 is applied 1,51,200X18 = Rs. 27,21,600/- 7. Medical expenses and hospital bills Rs. 3,73,820/- 8. For repair and replacement of artificial leg Rs. 1,50,000/- 11 8. Pain, shock and suffering Rs. 2,00,000/- Total Compensation Award Rs. 34,45,420/- 17. So far as rate of interest at the rate of 9% is concerned, the learned Claims Tribunal has also awarded the interest which is in accordance with law, as such, need not require enhancement, accordingly, the enhanced compensation shall also carry 9% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till the payment is actually made. 18. So far as submission of learned counsel for respondent No. 2, the learned Claims Tribunal should not relied upon the income tax return submitted by the appellant is misconceived in absence of any cross objection or appeal by the Insurance Company, accordingly, it is rejected. 19. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above and it is directed that the respondent No. 2/Oriental Insurance Company shall deposit the balance additional amount of Rs. 6,94,319/- with interest at the rate of 9% as provided above with the Claims Tribunal within six weeks from today. The said additional amount shall be disbursed in favour of the appellant by undertaking the necessary process of verification etc. and transferring the same to the bank account of the appellant. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish