Chattisgarh High Court
Anubhav Singh vs Madhuram Patel on 9 July, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
2025:CGHC:31661
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 403 of 2019
1 - New India Insurance Company Limited (Correct Name As Assurance),
Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, Division Office,
T.P. Nagar Korba, Tahsil And District Korba (Chhattisgarh)
--- Appellants
versus
1 - Anubhav Singh S/o Sunil Singh Rajput Aged About 6 Years (minor),
through natural guardian Sunil Singh, S/o. Pancham Singh, aged about 32
years, R/o Village Hardi Bazar, Chowki Hardibazar, District Korba
(Chhattisgarh).
2 - Madhuram Patel S/o Chaitram Patel Aged About 25 Years R/o Village
Ghutku, Police Station Koni, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
3 - Manjeet Singh Gambhir S/o Late Shri Trilok Singh Gambhir R/o Near
Gurudwara, Dayalband, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh).
--- Respondents
MAC No. 503 of 2019
1 – Anubhav Singh S/o Shri Sunil Singh Rajput Aged About 6 Years Minor
Through His Natural Guardian – Father Sunil Singh, S/o Pancham Singh,
Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village – Hardi Bazar, Chowki – Hardi Bazar,
District – Korba Chhattisgarh. —(Claimant).
—Appellants
Versus
1 – Madhuram Patel S/o Shri Chaitram Patel Aged About 25 Years R/o
Village Ghutaku, Police Station Koni, District – Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. —
(Driver)
2 – Manjit Singh Gambhir S/o Late Trilok Singh Gambhir R/o Near
Gurudwara, Dayalband, District – Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. —(Owner)
3 – New India Insurance Company Limited Through The Divisional Manager,
New India Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office, T.P. Nagar Korba,
Tahsil And District – Korba Chhattisgarh. —(Insurer).
—Respondents
For Appellant in (MAC 403/2019) : Ms. Swati Agrawal on behalf of
and Res. No.3 in (MAC 503/19) Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate
BALRAM
PRASAD
DEWANGAN
Digitally signed by
For Appellant in (MAC 503/2019) : Mr. P. Acharya, Advocate
& Res.1 in (MAC 403/2019)
BALRAM PRASAD
DEWANGAN
Date: 2025.07.16
11:18:10 +0530
2
For Res No. 2 & 3 (MAC 403/2019) : Ms. Deeksha Jaiswal on behalf of
& Res No. 1 & 2 (MAC 503/2019) Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order On Board
09/07/2025
1. Both the appeals are arising out of the same accident and award,
therefore, they are being heard together and decided by this common
order.
2. MAC No.403 of 2019 is filed by appellant/Insurance Company under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of
1988’) challenging the award dated 19.11.2018, passed in Claim Case
No.17/2016, passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Katghora, District – Korba (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’)
challenging the quantum of compensation. Whereas, MAC
No.503/2019 is filed by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement
of the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal.
3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that a claim application
U/s. 166 of the Act, 1988 was filed by father of master Anubhav Singh
seeking total compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- as against the injury
suffered by his son. It was pleaded in the application that on
29.10.2015, at about 3:00 PM, son of applicant, Anubhav Singh, was
returning home to collect his tuition copy. While passing in front of the
house of Gulshan Jaiswal on Deepka Road, Hardi Bazar, non-
applicant No.1, who was driving the offending vehicle trailer No.CG 10
C/8665, in a rash and negligent manner lost his control over the
offending vehicle and dashed Anubhav Singh. As a result, Anubhav
3
Singh fell on to the ground and wheel of the offending vehicle ran over
his leg, severely crushing it. He sustained grievous injuries, including a
severely crushed left leg below the knee, serious trauma to the toes
and chest , as well as multiple fractures and shattered bones. He was
immediately taken to Primary Health Center, Hardibazar and thereafter
he took treatment from Balaji Trauma & Superficiality and Indira
Gandhi District Hospital, Korba.
4. Non-applicant No.1 and 2 remained ex-parte and no reply was filed on
their behalf.
5. Non-applicant No. 3 filed its reply to the claim application, denying the
allegations made therein. It was pleaded that the injured attempted to
cross the road suddenly and negligently, resulting in a collision with the
offending vehicle and the accident occurred due to the negligence of
injured himself and he also contributed to the incident. Additionally, it
was pleaded that at the time of the accident, Non-applicant No. 1 did
not possess a valid and effective driving licence, and the vehicle was
being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance
policy
6. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of pleadings and the
evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed the claim
application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.6,87,765/- and
fastened liability upon non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company to
indemnify the insured.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit
that appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal on the ground
4
that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the
claimant/injured as Rs.5,860/- not of claimant/injured but the income of
his father, which is erroneous. For the purpose of computing the
amount of compensation, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have
considered only the income of claimant/injured and not of his father.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant/claimant submits that learned
Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation.
Relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Baby
Sakshi Greola Vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon & Anr., reported in 2024
SCC OnLine SC 3692, he submits that where the minor suffered
injuries resulting into permanent disability, income of the injured is to
be assessed notionally taking note of the minimum wages fixed by the
competent authority for the skilled labourer. In the case at hand the
learned Claims Tribunal though has assessed the income considering
the minimum wages fixed prevailing on the date of accident, however,
the income is taken as fixed for unskilled labourer, which is erroneous.
It is also contended that application of multiplier of 16 is also
erroneous. The appropriate multiplier would be 18. He also submits
that the amount of compensation awarded under other head is also on
lower side.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties also perused the records
of the claim case.
10. It is not in dispute that master Anubhav Singh, aged about 6 years,
S/o. Sunil Singh Rajput suffered motor accidental injuries over his left
leg. He further suffered permanent disability and as per the disability
certificate (Ex.P-224) issued by the District Hospital, Korba the
5
permanent disability of left lower limb has been assessed as 66.68%
mentioning post trauma stiffness of knee deformed leg disfigurement.
11. The learned Claims Tribunal while considering the loss of earning
capacity of the claimant has considered the disability certificate and
held that claimant suffered 27% loss of earning capacity and
accordingly computed the amount of compensation. I do not find any
error with respect to percentage of the loss of earning capacity
assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal, however, the learned Claims
Tribunal while assessing the income for the purpose of computing the
amount of compensation in para-26 has considered the income of
father of claimants and further held that as the father of the claimant
failed to prove his income, his income was assessed on notional basis
as Rs.5,860/- as fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum
Wages Act for unskilled labour.
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Baby Sakshi Greola (supra)
while considering its earlier decision has observed thus :-
“47. In this respect, it will be relevant to refer to
paragraphs 22, 23 and 24 of Kajal (supra), which read
thus:
“Attendant charges
22. The attendant charges have been awarded by the
High Court @ Rs. 2500 per month for 44 years, which
works out to Rs. 13,20,000. Unfortunately, this system is
not a proper system. Multiplier system is used to balance
out various factors. When compensation is awarded in
lump sum, various factors are taken into consideration.
When compensation is paid in lump sum, this Court has
always followed the multiplier system. The multiplier
6system should be followed not only for determining the
compensation on account of loss of income but also for
determining the attendant charges, etc. This system was
recognised by this Court in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v.
R.M.K. Veluswami [Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K.
Veluswami, AIR 1962 SC 1]. The multiplier system factors
in the inflation rate, the rate of interest payable on the
lump sum award, the longevity of the claimant, and also
other issues such as the uncertainties of life. Out of all
the various alternative methods, the multiplier method
has been recognised as the most realistic and
reasonable method. It ensures better justice between the
parties and thus results in award of “just compensation”
within the meaning of the Act.
23. It would be apposite at this stage to refer to the
observation of Lord Reid in Taylor v. O’Connor [Taylor v.
O’Connor, [1971] A.C. 115 : [1970] 2 WLR 472 (HL)] :
(AC p. 128)
“Damages to make good the loss of dependency over
a period of years must be awarded as a lump sum and
that sum is generally calculated by applying a multiplier to
the amount of one year’s dependency. That is a perfectly
good method in the ordinary case but it conceals the fact
that there are two quite separate matters involved — the
present value of the series of future payments, and the
discounting of that present value to allow for the fact that
for one reason or another the person receiving the
damages might never have enjoyed the whole of the
benefit of the dependency. It is quite unnecessary in the
ordinary case to deal with these matters separately.
Judges and counsel have a wealth of experience which is
an adequate guide to the selection of the multiplier and
any expert evidence is rightly discouraged. But in a case
where the facts are special I think that these matters
must have separate consideration if even rough justice is
7to be done and expert evidence may be valuable or even
almost essential. The special factor in the present case is
the incidence of income tax and, it may be, surtax.”
24. This Court has reaffirmed the multiplier method in
various cases like MCD v. Subhagwanti [MCD v.
Subhagwanti, AIR 1966 SC 1750 : 1966 ACJ 57], U.P.
SRTC v. Trilok Chandra [U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra,
(1996) 4 SCC 362], Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande
[Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande, (2017) 3 SCC 351 :
(2017) 2 SCC (Civ) 276 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 178]. This
Court has also recognised that Schedule II of the Act can
be used as a guide for the multiplier to be applied in each
case. Keeping the claimant’s age in mind, the multiplier in
this case should be 18 as opposed to 44 taken by the
High Court.”
[emphasis supplied]
48. Consistent with the approach adopted by this Court in
the cases of Kajal (supra) and Master Ayush (supra), we
deem it appropriate to enhance the compensation to be
awarded under this head. The minimum wages paid to a
skilled worker on a full- time basis in the State of Delhi at
the time of the accident was Rs. 4,358/-. Keeping the
appellant’s age in mind, the multiplier in the present case
should be 18. Accordingly, the compensation to be
awarded to the appellant under this head shall be
enhanced to Rs. 4,358 x 12 x 18 = Rs. 9,41,328/- and
rounded it off to Rs.9,42,000/-.”
13. In the aforementioned decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
that the compensation is to be assessed keeping in mind the minimum
wages fixed for skilled worker by the competent authority under the
Minimum Wages Act. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and further taking note of the
8
notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum
Wages Act fixing the minimum wage for skilled labour as Rs.6,302/-
per month, I find it appropriate to assess the income of
claimant/injured as Rs.6,302/- for the purpose of computing the
compensation, therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Claims
Tribunal assessing the minimum wages of the father of the claimant
treating him to be unskilled labour is not sustainable and accordingly it
is set-aside. Accordingly, the income of the injured is taken as
Rs.6,302/- per month notionally.
14. Learned Claims tribunal has rightly added 40% of the assessed
income towards the future prospects in the income assessed. As the
income of the injured is assessed as Rs.6,302/- per month, hence,
after addition of 40% towards future prospects, the total monthly
income of the injured comes to Rs.8,822/- (6,302 + 2,520 = 8,822)
and annual income of the injured works out to Rs.1,05,864/-.
15. Learned Claims Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 16 considering
the age of the father of the claimant, which is erroneous. For the
purpose of computing the amount of compensation in an injury case,
the application of multiplier as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case
of Master Ayush Vs. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance
Company Limited & Anr., reported in (2022) 7 SCC 738, would be
18. It is ordered accordingly. Accordingly, after applying the multiplier
of 18, the total income of the injured comes to Rs.19,05,552/-
16. The loss of earning due to disability suffered by the appellant is held to
the extent of 27%, therefore, compensation has to be calculated in that
9
proportion and accordingly total compensation under the head of loss
of earning works out to Rs.5,14,499/-.
17. Learned counsel for the appellant could not able to point out that while
awarding amount of compensation towards the medical expenses,
learned Claims Tribunal has escaped consideration of any of the
medical bills exhibited in proof of the same, therefore, I do not find any
good ground to interfere with the award of compensation under the
head of medical bills to the tune of Rs.2,34,970/-.
18. Learned Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs.4,500/- for
conveyance expenses, Rs.3000/- towards special diet, Rs.20,000/-
towards pains and suffering.
19. Looking to the nature of injuries suffered by the claimants, the
percentage of permanent disability as assessed by the District
Hospital, Korba and disfigurement of his left leg, in the opinion of this
Court, the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager sum of
Rs.20,000/- towards pains and suffering, which is enhanced to
Rs.40,000/-. Looking to the nature of injuries suffered and the period
of treatment, the amount of Rs.4,500/- awarded towards conveyance
expenses is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The documents of treatment
filed by claimant, which was marked and exhibited would show that
claimant took treatment from 29.10.2015 till April, 2016, therefore,
considering the age of claimant and period of treatment, nature of
injuries I find it appropriate to enhance the amount of compensation
awarded under the head of special diet from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.8,000/-.
It is ordered accordingly. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded
any amount of compensation towards loss of amenities in life.
10
Claimant is a boy of tender age of 8 years, he has to live his entire life
with the said disability and disfigurement sustained on his left leg,
however, no amount of compensation is awarded, therefore, I find it
appropriate to award Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities in life
and marriage prospects. It is ordered accordingly.
20. In the facts of the case and taking support of the decision in case of
Baby Sakshi Greola (Supra) it is ordered that there shall be
application of multiplier of 18 for computing loss of income.
21. For the forgoing discussions the amount of compensation to be
awarded to the appellant required recomputation, which is as under :-
SN Head Amount (in Rs.).
1. For loss of earning : 5,14,499.00
2. Medical expenses : 2,34,970.00
3. Pain and suffering : 40,000.00
4. Conveyance expenses : 10,000.00
5. For special diet : 8,000.00
6. Loss of amenities in life and : 1,00,000.00
marriage prospects
Total Compensation : 9,07,469.00
22. Accordingly, the MAC No.503/2019 is allowed in part. Now the
applicant/claimant shall be entitled for total compensation of
Rs.9,07,469.00. Any amount paid to the appellant/claimant as
compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced
amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from
the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions
mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact.
11
23. For the above discussion MAC No.403 of 2019 filed by the Insurance
Company is dismissed and the appeal bearing MAC No.503 of 2019 is
allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent
indicated above.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Balram