Chattisgarh High Court
Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company … vs Sunil Kumar Shrivastava on 11 April, 2025
1
Digitally signed by
SHUBHAM SINGH
RAGHUVANSHI
Date: 2025.04.17
10:50:22 +0530
2025:CGHC:16989
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1781 of 2019
IFFCO Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited Through- Branch
Manager, 1st Floor, Anupam Nagar Circuit House Road Rajnandgaon,
District- Ranjnandgaon Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
1 - Sunil Kumar Shrivastava S/o H.N. Shrivastava Aged About 42 Years
R/o Sonarpara, Ward No. 37, Post Office Tahsil And District
Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh................................(Claimant)
2 - Naresh Sharma S/o Ramesh Sharma Aged About 21 Years R/o
Sangam Chowk, Tulsipur, Ward No. 15, Tahsil And District -
Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh................................ (Driver)
3 - Mukesh Sharma S/o Ramesh Sharma Aged About 25 Years R/o
Sangam Chowk, Tulsipur, Ward No. 15, Tahsil And District -
Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh...............................(Owner)
....Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Mr. Tejasva Deo, Advocate on behalf of
Mr. Gopal Swaroop Gupta, Advocate
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Order on Board
11/04/2025
1. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the award
dated 23.04.2019 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (FTC), Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Claim Case No.145/2017,
2
whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.23,73,162/-
with interest @ 7% per annum, from the date of application till its
realization, in favour of Respondent No.1/claimant for his
irreparable loss.
2. The necessary facts for disposal of this appeal, in brief, are that on
27.05.2016, when Respondent No.1/claimant was going to bring
his motorcycle near Police Petrol Pump, Bhadoriya Chowk,
driver/respondent No. 2 of offending vehicle (Activa) bearing
registration No. CG-08-NC-2143 drove the vehicle in rash and
negligent manner and dashed the claimant, due to which the
claimant sustained fracture in hips and knees. He was admitted in
hospitals for 10 days where his operation was being done.
Therefore, the claimant has claimed Rs.44,11,220 as compensation
on various heads. The Claims Tribunal after considering the
evidence brought on record awarded total compensation of
Rs.23,73,162/- with interest @ 7% per annum, from the date of
application till its realization in favour of the claimant/Respondent
No.1, in which, the Insurance Company, driver and owner jointly
and severally have been held liable for payment of compensation.
3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company challenged the
quantum part in this appeal. The first argument of learned Counsel
is that the income of the injured Sunil Shrivastava has been
assessed to be more by the Tribunal as Rs. 2,56,600/-. The second
argument is that in the permanent disability certificate (Exhibit P-1)
issued by Dr. Prakash Bhalerao (AW-1) in respect of the
claimant/injured, the fracture of the hip and joint of his left leg has
been stated and the disability of 60% has been stated only for that
part, whereas the Tribunal has considered the disability of 60% for
the whole body and the loss of income of the injured, calculated on
the basis of 60% i.e Rs. 21,55,440/- which is more and needs to be
reduced suitably.
4. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 opposes the argument
advanced on behalf of the Appellant/Insurance Company and
submits that the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is just and
3
proper and requires no interference by this Court.
5. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 & 3 submits that at the time
of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the
Appellant/Insurance Company, therefore, the insurance company is
liable to pay the amount of compensation.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. As far as the income of the claimant/injured Sunil Shrivastava aged
42 years is concerned, in this regard, the claimant is said to be the
operator of a printing press. To show his annual income, income tax
returns of the year 2013-14 (Exhibit P-68), year 2014-15 (Exhibit P-
65), year 2015-16 (Exhibit P-62), year 2016-17 (Exhibit P-60) have
been submitted, according to which his annual income is shown as
Rs. 1,48,372/-, Rs. 1,92,750/-, Rs. 2,38,400/- and Rs. 2,61,794/-
respectively. Although the income tax returns for the first two years
have been filed on 21/02/2015 and the returns for the remaining
two years have been filed on 11/03/2017, but no reason is shown to
disbelieve the said returns. The Tribunal, while not accepting the
income of the claimant/injured from agricultural sources, has
determined his annual income as Rs. 2,56,600/- on the basis of the
said statement, which is not found to be contrary or perverse to the
facts and evidence available on record. Therefore, the argument of
the appellant/insurance company that the annual income of the
claimant/injured has been overestimated is not found to be
acceptable.
8. As far as the question of calculating the loss of future income of the
claimant/applicant by assessing his disability to the extent of 60% is
concerned, it is clear from the evidence presented that the
permanent disability certificate (Exhibit P-1) issued by Dr. Prakash
Bhalerao (AW-1) stated that he had fracture of the neck of femur of
his left hip and stiffness in the left knee and hip joint. On the basis
of which he had issued a certificate of permanent disability of 60%
which was effective for 03 years and there was a possibility of
partial improvement in it by undergoing physiotherapy etc. Dr.
4
Prakash Bhalerao has clearly admitted that the said 60% disability
is only for the affected body parts and not for the entire body. He
has also admitted that the details of the range of motion of his legs
during the examination and how much weight he could lift are not
given in the certificate. In this situation, while Dr. Prakash Bhalerao
has assessed 60% only for the injured body parts and not for the
whole body. But the calculation of loss of income by the Tribunal on
the basis of disability of the whole body cannot be said to be
correct. Considering the nature of work of the claimant/injured Sunil
Srivastava which is that of an operator in a printing press, also
considering the fact that the certificate is issued for 03 years and
there is a possibility of partial improvement in future with
physiotherapy and finding that 60% was assessed only for the
injured body part. In this situation, on the basis of all the facts like
nature of injury etc., the loss of income of the claimant/injured is
assessed to be 30% instead of 60% so his future loss of income is
calculated on the basis of 30%.
9. In view of above, I find it appropriate to take income of
claimant/injured as Rs. 2,56,600/- per annum. As discussed above,
assuming a 30% loss of income of the claimant, the loss of income
of the applicant comes thereafter to Rs 76,980 per annum.
10. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma
(Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another
reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company
Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680
considering the age of the deceased to be 42 years 6 months at the
time of accident i.e. 27.05.2016, after applying multiplier of 14, the
total loss of income works out to Rs. 10,77,720/- (76980 x 14).
Furthermore, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,51,722
towards medical expenses, Rs.21,000/- towards physiotherapy,
Rs.10,000/- towards attendant, Rs.5,000/- towards travelling
5
expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering which are
just and proper and requires no interference. Therefore, the
claimant would become entitled for total compensation of Rs.
12,85,442/-. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation in the
following manner:-
S.No. Heads Calculation
01 Towards loss of income Rs. 10,77,720/-
02 Towards medical expenses Rs. 151,722/-
03 Towards physiotherapy Rs. 21,000/-
04 Towards attendant Rs. 10,000/-
05 Towards travel expenses Rs. 5,000/-
06 Towards pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/-
Total Rs. 12,85,442/-
11. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 12,85,442/-.
Accordingly, the claimant shall be entitled for compensation of
Rs.12,85,442 instead of Rs.21,55,440/- as awarded by the Claims
Tribunal.
12. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is
partly allowed. The impugned award stands modified to the above
extent and rest of the conditions including the interest part shall
remain intact.
13. Records of the Tribunal along with a copy of this judgment be sent
back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Shubham