1 CGHC010245202024 2026:CGHC:42247 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1477 of 2024 1 - Kunwar Singh Sahu S/o Shri Brijlal Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Dihipara, Semra, Police Station- Sihawa, Tahsil Nagri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Kirtan Sahu S/o Shri Shatrughan Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Maharajpara(Bhatapara), Sarona, Police Station Narharpur, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh (Driver of the Offending Vehicle Bollero C.G.17 D/1972). 2 - Devlal Sahu S/o Shri Shatrughan Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Maharajpara(Bhatapara), Sarona, Police Station Narharpur, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh (Owner of The Offending Vehicle Bollero C.G.17 D/1972). 3 - Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Limited through the Branch Office, Second Floor, Simaran Tower, Behind L.I.C. Office, Pandari, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of Bollero C.G.17 D/1972) ... Respondents For the appellant : Mrs. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate For respondent no.3 : Ms. Priya Kaiwart, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 28.09.2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 2 “MV Act”) has been filed by the claimant (injured) seeking enhancement of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 13.02.2024 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC) Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh in Claim Case No.122 of 2021 whereby a total compensation of Rs.75,157/- has been awarded for the damages caused to the appellant. 2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the claim application are that on 15.01.2020 the appellant along Kunwar Singh Sahu was coming back to his house from Nagari on his motorcycle. On the way at about 6.30 p.m., , respondent no.1 driving the offending Bolero No. CG 17-D/1972 in rash and negligent manner hit the motor cycle of the appellant, due to which he sustained fractures in right hand and leg and was admitted in hospital. He filed a claim petition seeking a total enhancement of Rs.11,50,000/- on different heads. 3. The Tribunal after evaluating the facts and documentary evidence placed on record, has granted a total compensation of Rs.75,157/- on various heads as per the following table: 01. Treatment expenses Rs. 37,157=00 02. Attendant/Assistant charges Rs. 1,000=00 03. Physical suffering and Mental agony Rs. 20,000=00 04. Nutritious food Rs. 5,000=00 05. Future Treatment Expenses Rs. 5,000=00 06. Motorcycle Repairing Expenses Rs. 3,000=00 07. Transportation expenses Rs. 4,000=00 Total Rs. 75,157=00 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that a meagre sum in all has been awarded, which cannot be said to be a just compensation, therefore, the award be suitably enhanced. 3 5. Learned counsel for respondent no.3/Insurer submits that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper which needs no interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. The claimant has pleaded that during treatment he underwent surgery and a rod was inserted. However, the Tribunal observed at para 10 of its award that the claimant did not state in his chief examination regarding the insertion of a rod plate after surgery for any of his fractures. He further admitted in para 9 of his cross examination that he did not produce any documents regarding his disability. 8. As observed by the Tribunal, the claimant has not produced any certificate from an authorised Medical Board to prove the permanent disability. A loss of future income can only be awarded if there is a permanent functional disability that affects the claimant's earning capacity. In absence of such evidence, the Tribunal did not work out the loss of income, which cannot be said to be unsustainable. 9. The claimant has produced the discharge ticket vide Ex.A-38 based on which the Tribunal has found that the claimant was admitted in hospital for treatment a total of 5 days from the date of accident, 15.01.2020 to 19.01.2020. The Tribunal held that grievous injury has been proved to be caused due to the accident. Therefore, it has properly granted treatment expenses of Rs. 37,157/- as per the documents produced by the claimant vide Ex.P-13 to P-54. Further Rs.20,000/- granted under the head “physical and mental agony” cannot be said to be inadequate. 10. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the sum of Rs.1000/- granted for assistant charges is very meagre which may suitably enhanced. Indisputably, the appellant was admitted in hospital for total five 4 days. The attendant charges Rs.1000/- granted by the Tribunal is inadequate, therefore, it is enhanced to Rs.3000/-. 11. In view of the above discussion, this Court is recomputing the compensation as per the following table : 01. Treatment expenses Rs. 37,157=00 02. Attendant/Assistant charges (changed) Rs. 3,000=00 03. Physical suffering and Mental agony Rs. 20,000=00 04. Nutritious food Rs. 5,000=00 05. Future Treatment Expenses Rs. 5,000=00 06. Motorcycle Repairing Expenses Rs. 3,000=00 07. Transportation expenses Rs. 4,000=00 Total Rs. 77,157=00 In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.75,157/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.77,157-. After deducting the amount of Rs.75,157/-, the appellant is held entitled for an additional sum of Rs.2000/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 12. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed off and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated hereinabove. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge Rao ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.09.30 10:20:40 +0530 5