Chattisgarh High Court
Dinesh Kumar vs Sidhayak Sahu on 10 June, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:22824
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 117 of 2020
1 - Dinesh Kumar S/o Jantram Aged About 33 Years Permanent R/o Village
Tivarata, Post Tivarata Thana Dipka, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh.
Presently R/o Khalari Para Raipura Thana D.D. Nagar, Post Raipura, Tahsil And
District Raipur Chhattisarh. (Claimant), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
Versus
1 - Sidhayak Sahu S/o Jagannath Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Khairkhundi
Thana Ratanpur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle
Track No. C.G. 10/a.K./8492). (Driver), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Pradeepchand Jha S/o Ramnath Jha R/o Dipupara, Ward No. 15 Tarbahar
Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Track No.
C.G. 10/a.K./8492). (Owner), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
3 - The New India Assurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office No. 3, R.D.A. Belding, Bajrang Market G.E. Road Raipur, Tahsil
And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Track No. C.G.
10/a.K./8492). (Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. A.L. Singhroul, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order On Board
10/06/2025
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of the
amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its
award dated 06.11.2019 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident
SHUBHAM
DEY
Digitally
signed by
SHUBHAM
DEY
2
Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.
348/2019.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 17.08.2018, when the appellant
along with his friend namely, Bharat Singh on his motorcycle bearing
registration no. CG 12 AR 6449 was going towards Batari, at that time
around 08:30 P.M., when they reached near Kosabadi, the offending
vehicle i.e. Truck bearing registration no. CG 10 AK 8492 driven by the
Respondent No. 1 stopped the vehicle suddenly on the middle of the
road due to which, the appellant met with an accident with the
offending vehicle. In the said accident, appellant and his friend 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. 173/2018 at P.S. Deepka, District – Korba 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 compensation, overlooking the fact that
the appellant suffered loss of left eye in the accident resulting in permanent
disability. However, the learned Claims Tribunal assessing permanent
disability to the extent of 50% has assessed loss of earning capacity as 40%
only. He also contended that the income assessed by the learned Claims
Tribunal is on lower side. The amount of compensation awarded on other
heads is also on lower side and the liability to satisfy the amount of
compensation is fastened upon the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company.
Hence, the amount of compensation may be suitably enhanced.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 do not
dispute the submission made by the counsel for appellant that, the
liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is on the Respondent
3
No. 3/Insurance company. He further submits that the amount of
compensation awarded in the facts of the case is just and proper and
does not call for any interference.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of
the claim case.
6. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant with
respect to the assessment of the income of the appellant is concerned,
the date of accident is 07.08.2018. In the pleadings, it is mentioned that
the appellant was working as Mason and earning Rs. 400/- per day.
However, the said pleading could not be proved by producing clinching
and admissible piece of evidence. In the aforementioned facts of the
case, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly decided to assess the income
of the appellant on notional basis. For assessing the income, in cases,
where the claimant/appellants failed to prove the nature of occupation
and the income from the said occupation by producing clinching and
admissible piece of evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal is required to
consider the age of the claimant/deceased, the price index and may
also take the help of the minimum wages as fixed by the competent
authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the purpose of
computing the amount of compensation.
7. In the case at hand, learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income
of the appellant/claimant as Rs. 6,000/- per month without assigning
any reason for the same. In the facts of the case, where there is no
proof of income of the claimant, in the opinion of this Court, the learned
Claims Tribunal ought to have taken note of the minimum wages as
fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
According to the Minimum Wages prevailing in the State, the minimum
4
wages fixed for Unskilled Labourer is Rs. 7,800/- per month for Zone
‘C’ cities. The place of residence of the appellant/claimant falls within
the ‘C’ Zone and for which, the minimum wages fixed for Unskilled
Labourer is Rs. 7,800/- per month, hence, I find it appropriate to assess
income of the appellant as Rs. 7,800/- per month. It is ordered
accordingly.
8. The learned Claims Tribunal taking the schedule under the Employees
Compensation Act, 1923 has assessed the loss of earning capacity for
loss of one eye as 40% which cannot be said to be erroneous and the
said finding is accordingly, affirmed.
9. In the facts of the case and discussions made in preceding paragraphs,
I find appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation.
10. Though, the learned Claims Tribunal has concluded that the appellant
suffered 40% disability, however, no amount is added to the income of
the deceased towards the loss of future prospect. 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 suffers 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.”
5
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 .
11. In the case at hand, the age of the deceased is 32 years and therefore,
there shall enhancement of 40% of the assessed income towards the
loss of future prospects. Accordingly, the monthly income of the
deceased would come to Rs. 10920/- (7800 + 3120) and the yearly
income of the deceased would come to Rs. 1,31,040/- (10920 X 12).
The appellant is aged about 32 years and therefore, the multiplier of 16
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, which makes the total income of the
deceased as Rs. 20,96,640/- (1,31,040 X 16). As this Court has
assessed the loss of earning of the appellant to the extent of 40% and
therefore, the 40% of the loss of income would come to Rs. 8,38,656/-
(40% of 20,96,640).
12. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the amount of
compensation awarded under the other heads is on lower side. The
learned Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 20,000/- towards the
pains and sufferings, which in the opinion of this Court, in view of the
nature of injuries suffered is on the lower side and accordingly, the
compensation awarded towards pains and sufferings is enhanced from
Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-. The amount of compensation awarded
under the head of conveyance expenses and special diet is
6
appropriately awarded which does not call for any interference. Further,
in the facts of the case and looking to the nature of injuries, I find it
appropriate to award Rs. 10,000/- towards attendant and Rs. 30,000/-
towards loss of amenities in life. It is ordered accordingly.
13. Now, the appellant/claimant will be entitled for the total amount of
compensation which is as under:-
• Rs. 9,38,656/- (8,38,656 + 30,000 + 10,000 + 20,000 + 30,000 +
10,000)
14. This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% from the date
of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions
mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact.
15. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellant as compensation shall
be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated
above.
16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award
stands modified to the extent indicated above.
17. Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Dey
[ad_1]
Source link