1 2026:CGHC:19648 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1962 of 2019 1 - Smt. Suman Jain, W/o. Shri Surendra Jain, Aged About 42 Years. 2- Surendra Jain, S/o. Late Shri Parasmal Jain, Aged About 45 Years. Appellant/ Injured Represented Through Her Case Friend Shri Surendra Jain, S/o. Late Shri Parasmal Jain, R/o. Village Achholi, Thana Doundi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Claimants) ... Appellants versus 1 - Mahendra Singh, S/o. Shri Daya Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o. Saksharta Chowk, Bhilai Camp- 1, Thana Chhawani, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Bus No. CG-19-F-9000). 2 - M/s Kanker Roadways Infront Of Gandhi Garden Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Bus No. CG-19-F-9000). 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, First Floor, Madina Building, Kachahari Chowk Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Bus No. CG-19-F-9000). ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.04.29 10:46:52 +0530 2 4 - Shiekh Kalim, S/o. Shri Shiekh Salam, Aged About 60 Years, R/o. Rajeev Nagar Nakapara Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Bus No. CG-07-NA-7722). 5 - M/s Payal Travels, G.E. Road Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Bus No. CG-07-NA-7722). 6 - The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Near Rajendra Park, G.E. Road Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Bus No. CG-07-NA-7722). ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Sourabh Sharma & Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocates For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 28.04.2026 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants/ claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 31.08.2019 passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Baster, Kanker (for short “the Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.122/2016. 3 2. The accident occurred on 16.06.2015, claimant Suman Jain suffered grievous injuries and she was totally paralyzed and on wheelchair. She was medically examined by the medical board vide Ex.P-115(C) in which she was diagnosed to be 100% permanent disability, which was proved by Dr. A.R.Gota (AW-2) stating that her both legs were paralyzed and she has difficulty in urination also. He also stated that in X-ray C-6, C-7 & D-1, D-3 vertebra were found fractured and she was found 100% permanent disability, which was certified by the medical board vide Ex.P-115. Nothing has been stated in the cross-examination. However, the learned Claims Tribunal, after having heard learned counsel for the parties and while appreciating the evidence, came to the conclusion that yearly income of the claimant is Rs. 2,23,624/- but deducted 50% holding that her business is being looked after by her husband/servants and she is able to manage the work with the help of her servant and granted compensation of Rs. 21,57,314/-, against which this appeal has been preferred. 3. Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in deducting 50% of yearly income holding that the business of the injured claimant is being managed by her husband and servants, as such, the appeal be allowed. 4 4. Mr. Raj Awasthi & Mr. Sourabh Sharma with Mr. Saurabh Gupta, learned counsels appearing for the respective insurance company would support the impugned award and submit that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper, which does not call for any interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records minutely. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal has assessed permanent disability to the extent of 100% and calculated the yearly income of the injured claimant to be Rs. 2,23,624/- but deducted 50% towards loss of earning holding that though she had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 100% but her business is being managed by her husband and servants, which is erroneous, as there is no pleading in this regard in the written statement filed by the insurance company and no evidence has been led by the insurance company except picking out some statement from the statement of the appellant/ claimant. The Claims Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding that injured claimant had suffered 100% permanent disability, therefore, deduction of 50% yearly income holding that her business is being managed by her husband is not based on pleading/evidence 5 available on record, more particularly, when she was in wheelchair and she completely paralyzed. 7. Accordingly, the income of the injured claimant is taken to Rs. 2,23,624/- per annum and she would be entitled for the following compensation :- Heads Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court Income Rs. 2,23,624/- per annum (Deducted 50%) Rs. 1,11,812/- Rs. 2,23,624/- per annum Future Prospects Nil Add @ 25% :- Rs. 2,23,624 + 55,906 = Rs. 2,79,530/- Multiplier of 15 Rs. 1,11,812 x 15 = Rs. 16,77,180/- Rs. 2,79,530 x 15 = Rs. 41,92,950/- Medical Bill Rs. 4,05,134/- Rs. 4,05,134/- + Rs. 38,600/- as per Ex.P-38 Rs. 4,43,734/- Traveling, Special Diet & Attendant Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 2,91,200/- (as per bills) Physical & Mental Agony Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 50,000/- Total Rs. 21,57,314/- Rs. 49,77,884/- 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs. 21,57,314/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 49,77,884/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 21,57,314/- already awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the appellants/claimants 6 are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 28,20,570/-. The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of three months. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok