Chattisgarh High Court
Vijay Kumar vs Sunil Kumar Mittal on 9 June, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:22653
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1448 of 2019
1 - Vijay Kumar S/o Punitram Dhiwar Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Belsonda,
Thana And Tahsil And District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh...........(Claimant), District
: Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
Versus
1 - Sunil Kumar Mittal S/o Indalchand Mittal R/o Village Belsonda, Thana And Tahsil
And District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.........(Driver Of The Offending Vehicle
Pickup No. C.G. 04/c.P./6185).............(Driver), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
2 - Bodhankar Sahu S/o Anujram Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Jennjara
Thana- Jonk Khariyar Raod District- Nuapada, Odissa...........(Registered Owner Of
The Offending Vehicle Pickup No. C.G. 04/c.P./6185)..........(Owner), District :
Nuapada *, Orissa
3 - Branch Manager The Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited, Shiv
Mohan Bhawan Vidhan Shabha Road Pandri, Disrtict- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.............
(Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Pickup No. C.G. 04/c.P./6185)................Insurer),
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. A.L. Singhroul, Advocate
For Respondents : Ms. Shrishti Upadhyay, Advocate
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order On Board
09/06/2025
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of the
SHUBHAM
DEY
amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its
Digitally
signed by
SHUBHAM
DEY
2
award dated 01.04.2019 passed by the Additional Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in Claim
Case No. H-47/2017.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 22.01.2016 at about 10:30 A.M.,
when the appellant along with his friend Chotu @ Pradeep on his
motorcycle was going towards Belsonda from Godhari, at that time
when they reached near Belsonda Pond, the offending vehicle i.e.
Bolero Pickup bearing registration no. CG 04 JD 5141 driven by the
Respondent No. 1 dashed the appellant’s vehicle from behind and
caused accident. In the said accident, appellant suffered serious
injuries, they were taken to Hospital for treatment. Subsequent to the
accident, a crime was registered against the Respondent No. 1 bearing
Crime No. 33/2016 at P.S. Karanjiya, District – Dindori for the alleged
offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal
erred in awarding a meagre sum as amount of compensation in the facts and
circumstances of the case, overlooking the fact that the appellant suffered
fracture on the femur bone resulting in permanent disability to the extent of
50% as proved by Ex. P/6 issued by the Dr. N.K. Mandappe (AW-2). He next
contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of
the appellant as Rs. 150/- per day only overlooking the fact that the appellant
was doing the work of Labourer and was earning Rs. 4,500/- as pleaded and
stated by the appellant. No amount has been awarded towards pains and
suffering, loss of income during laid down period, special diet and attendant.
Hence, the amount of compensation may suitably enhanced.
4. On the other hand, l earned counsel for the Respondent No. 3
vehemently opposes the submission made by the counsel for the
3
appellant and would submit that the submission of the counsel for the
appellant that the appellant suffered 50% permanent disability is not
correct, in view of the evidence of Dr. N.K. Mandappe (AW-2) available on
record. She contended that Dr. N.K. Mandappe (AW-2) in his evidence has
admitted that the Disability Certificate (Ex. P/6) issued mentioning 50%
permanent disability is only with respect to one leg which is part of the
body and not for the whole body and therefore, the learned Claims
Tribunal justified in assessing the permanent disability with respect to
the loss of earning capacity to the extent of 20% which does not call for
any interference. She further submits that the appellant failed to prove
the nature of work and his income by producing admissible piece of
evidence. Hence, the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the
income on notional basis which also cannot be said to be erroneous.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of
the claim case.
6. So far as the first ground raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant with respect to the permanent disability assessed by the
learned Claims Tribunal to the extent of 20% for loss of earning
capacity is concerned, it is not in dispute that the appellant in a motor
vehicular accident suffered fracture of right sept femur. During the
course of treatment, rod was implanted and it resulted in shortening of
leg. The appellant produced himself before the Medical Board and the
Medical Board has assessed the disability to the extent of 50% vide
Disability Certificate (Ex. P/6). The doctor namely, Dr. N.K. Mandappe
who was a member of the Medical Board is examined as AW-2 and in
his evidence, he proved the issuance of the Disability Certificate (Ex.
P/6) mentioning 50% permanent disability of the right leg. In his
4
evidence, he admitted that the 50% Disability Certificate (Ex. P/6) is
issued with respect to one leg i.e. right leg only and not for the whole
body. He also stated that there was shortening of 1.6 inches of right
leg.
7. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciating the documentary and
oral evidence available on record, has assessed the loss of earning
capacity due to the permanent disability suffered by the appellant to the
extent of 20%. For the purpose of awarding compensation against the
permanent disability suffered by the claimant, it is to be considered
whether the permanent disability certificate issued by the Medical
Board or the competent authority is with respect to the whole body or
how the nature of the permanent disability affected the loss of earning
capacity of a person.
8. In the case at hand, the doctor who issued the Disability Certificate (Ex.
P/6) in his evidence has admitted that there is shortening of leg of 1.6
inches and due to which, the appellant is facing difficulty in his
movement. No other abnormality after the treatment has been stated
by the doctor. In the facts of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the
learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing the loss of earning
capacity of the appellant to the extent of 20% and therefore, I do not
find any good ground to interfere with the said finding recorded by the
learned Claims Tribunal. The finding with respect to loss of earning
capacity to the extent of 20% is hereby affirmed.
9. So far as the next ground raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant with respect to the assessing of income of the appellant as
Rs. 150/- per day and Rs. 4,500/- per month is concerned, true, it is
that the appellant failed to prove the nature of employment and his
5
income by producing documentary and clinching admissible piece of
evidence, in the aforementioned facts of the case, learned Claims
Tribunal has taken the notional income for assessing the income of the
appellant. However, the learned Claims Tribunal has not given any
reasoning for assessing the income of the appellant as Rs. 150/- per
day. In the aforementioned facts of the case, where the nature of
employment and the income is not proved by admissible piece of
evidence, the Courts/Tribunal can take help of the minimum wages
prevailing in the district as fixed by the competent authority under the
10. Perusal of the minimum wages as fixed by the competent
authority for the period of 01.10.2015 to 31.10.2016 of Unskilled
Labourer is mentioned as Rs. 5,860/- per month and therefore, I find it
appropriate to take the wages of the appellant as Rs. 5,860/- per month
instead of Rs. 4,500/- per month as fixed by the learned Claims
Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly.
11. Learned Claims Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence has recorded
that the appellant took treatment as patient for about 34 days. Looking
to the nature of injury which is fracture on the femur bone and further
the implant of the rod and the nature of work as stated by the appellant
and accepted by the Claims Tribunal that the appellant to be a
Labourer, the appellant may not be able to perform his work for a
further period of about 03 months. Therefore, I find it appropriate to
award loss of income during the laid down period of 03 months i.e. Rs.
17580 (5,860 X 3). Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any
amount towards the pains and sufferings, for which, the appellant is
6
entitled for a sum of Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 5,000/- towards special diet and
Rs. 5,000/- towards Attendant.
12. In the facts of the case and discussions as observed, I find
appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation.
13. The income of the appellant is assessed by the learned Claims
Tribunal based on the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 notified by the
competent authority from the period from 01.10.2015 to 31.10.2016 as
Rs. 5860/- treating the appellant to be Labourer.
14. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandramani Nanda Vs. Sarat
Chandra Swain & Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2859 while
considering the award of compensation towards the future prospects in
the case of permanent disability has held that the claimant who suffer
the permanent disability is also entitled for the loss of future prospects
and held thus:-
” 14.3 However, the Tribunal and the High Court
both have failed to consider the fact that the
appellant is also entitled for enhancement on
account of future prospects. Hence, in line with the
law laid down in National Insurance Company
Limited v. Pranay Sethi10, given the age of
appellant was 32 years at the time of accident, he
is entitled to 40% future prospects.”
In view of the aforementioned decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
that where the injured/claimant suffered permanent disability, there
should be addition of loss of future prospects based on the age of the
deceased as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680 .
7
15. In the case at hand, the age of the deceased is 45 years and therefore,
there shall enhancement of 25% towards the loss of future prospects.
Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.
7325/- (5860 + 1465) and the yearly income of the deceased would
come to Rs. 87,900/- (7325X12). The appellant is aged about 45 years
and therefore, the multiplier of 14 as held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 would be
applicable, therefore, the total income of the deceased would come to
Rs. 1230600/- (87,900 X 14). As this Court has assessed the loss of
earning of the appellant to the extent of 20% and therefore, the 20% of
the loss of income would come to Rs. 246120/- (20% of 1230600) of
Apart from the loss of income of Rs. 246120/-, the appellant would also
be entitled for Rs. 15,000 towards mental pain and agony, Rs. 5,000
towards attendant, Rs. 5,000/- towards special diet and Rs. 17580
towards loss of income during laid down period and Rs. 10,600
towards medical expenses as awarded by the Tribunal. Appellant is
resident of Village Belsonda, District – Mahasamund, took treatment at
B.R. Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur and therefore, he his also entitled for
compensation of Rs. 5000 towards conveyance expenses. It is ordered
accordingly.
16. Now, the appellant/claimant will be entitled for the total amount of
compensation which is as under:-
• Rs. 3,04,300/- (246120 + 5,000 + 15,000 + 5,000 + 17580 +
10,600 + 5000)
8
17. This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% from the date
of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions
mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact.
18. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellant as compensation shall
be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated
above.
19. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award
stands modified to the extent indicated above.
20. Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- —–/–/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Dey
[ad_1]
Source link