Chattisgarh High Court
Khaniyalal Ravte vs Mohit Kumar Yadav on 11 June, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
2025:CGHC:23066
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 441 of 2019
1. Khaniyalal Ravte S/o Firturam Ravte Aged About 23 Years
R/o Village Kachhe Tashil,bhanupratappur, District Uttar
Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant-claimant
versus
1. Mohit Kumar Yadav S/o Late Bhagchand Yadav Aged About
35 Years R/o Bagolipara, Ward No. 15, Dallirajhar, Tahsil
Doundi, District Baloda Chhattisgarh.(Driver).
2. Brijlal Jaiswal S/o Late Harishanker Jaiswal Aged About 71
Years R/o Village Kachhe, Tahsil Bhanupratappur, District
Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh.(Owner),
3. Chola Mandalam Ms General Insurance Co.Ltd. Through Its
Branch Manager, Raipur Chhattisgarh.(Insurer).
... Respondents
For Appellant : Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate.
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate on
behalf of Mr. Shokie Yadav, Advocat
Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order on Board
11/06/2025
1. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 fairly submits that the
Claims Tribunal has fastened liability to satisfy the amount of
compensation upon the respondents, jointly and severaly, but
2
first liability to pay the amount of compensation is upon the
insurance company being the insurer of offending vehicle.
2. With consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
3. This miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) has been
preferred on behalf of appellant-injured for enhancement of
compensation awarded by the learned Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhanupratappur vide award dated
1.9.2018 by which a sum of Rs.213240/- has been awarded
as compensation for 53.8% permanent disability suffered by
claimant in a motor vehicular accident.
4. Appellant-claimant filed an application under Section 166 of
the Act of 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of
Rs.16,50,432/- under various heads, on the ground that on
30.3.2017 at about 12:15 p.m. while he was coming out from
Auridongri Mines at Kachhe, truck bearing registration
number CG08-AB-7329, which was driven in a rash and
negligent manner by non-applicant No.1-driver, dashed him
and caused accident. Appellant sustained multiple grievous
injuries all over the body. Claimant was 23 years old at the
time of accident, he was working as Labourer at Auridongri
Mines and doing agriculture work in his fields and earning
Rs.15,000/- per month. Application filed by claimant-injured
was resisted by non-applicants Nos.1 to 3, i.e. the owner-
3
insured and the insurer on the grounds taken in the respective
replies. Learned Claims Tribunal after analzying the evidence
led by the respective parties, allowed the application of
claimant in part and awarded total compensation of
Rs.2,13,240/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of
filing of claim petition till its realization.
5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the Claims
Tribunal overlooking the disability certificate issued by the
Competent Authority mentioning percentage of disability to be
53.8%, has assessed loss of future income at Rs.1,65,240/-
treating the appellant to have suffered 18% disablement of
permanent nature, which is erroneous. She further submits
that the Claims Tribunal has assessed income of appellant as
Rs.4500/- per month only without considering the fact that
accident occurred on 30.3.2017 and on which date even the
minimum wage rate prevailing and fixed by the Competent
Authority was much more than that. Lastly, she contended
that amount of compensation awarded under other heads is
also on lower side. Hence, she prays that the amount of
compensation be enhanced suitably.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3
opposes the submissions of learned counsel for appellant and
submits that the Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper
compensation which does not call for any interference.
4
Though the certificate issued by the competent authority
mentions that appellant has suffered 52.8% disability, but the
Claims Tribunal recorded specific reason for arriving at
conclusion that appellant has suffered 18% loss of earning
capacity. Date of accident is 30.3.2017, however, appellant
failed to prove his occupation and income by adducing cogent
and clinching documentary evidence before the Claims
Tribunal and therefore, assessment of income of deceased in
the facts of the case is just and proper.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and
perused the record of claim case including impugned award.
8. So far as assessment of income of appellant is concerned, as
appellant failed to prove his occupation and income by
adducing documentary evidence in support thereof, therefore,
the Claims Tribunal assessed monthly income of claimant as
Rs.4,500/- on notional basis. It is well settled that if the
claimant failed to prove the nature of occupation and income,
learned Claims Tribunal has to assess occupation to be a
labourer and to assess the income considering the price index,
cost of living, wage structure prevailing within the area the
victim was residing etc. and may also take note of minimum
wages fixed by the Commissioner and Competent Authority
under the Minimum Wages act, 1948. In case at hand,
appellant is resident of District North Bastar Kanker, which falls
5
within Zone ‘C’, as classified by the Competent Authority under
the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and minimum wage rate for an
unskilled labourer of a ‘C’ grade city of the State prescribed by
the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948
for the period 1.10.2016 to 31.3.2017 was Rs.6,206/-. Hence,
in the opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal erred in fixing
notional income of victim on lower side without assigning any
reason thereof. Hence, considering the facts of the case, I find
it appropriate to fix Rs.6,206/- as notional income of the
appellant for the purpose of calculating the compensation. It is
ordered accordingly.
9. So far as the submission of learned counsel for appellant with
respect to assessment of loss of earning capacity to the tune
of 18% is concerned, perusal of the evidence of the appellant
would show that he has stated that he was doing labour work
in mines, due to nature of injury resulting into permanent
disability he is unable to do labour work in agriculture fields. In
the applicant, appellant has pleaded with respect to fracture of
his leg, but pleaded that the entire medical expenses have
been borne by the management of mines. He has further
stated that he is not doing any work after the accident. The
doctor who treated the appellant has been examined as AW-2.
This witness in his examination has proved issuance of
disability certificate (Ex.P-10) after examination of appellant by
6
the Medical Board. He further stated that disability certificate
is issued for a period of three years and thereafter on being
applied by appellant, certificate can be issued after
examination. He has further stated that disability certificate is
issued for the purpose of government works. In the entire
evidence of the doctor, it is not specifically mentioned that due
to nature of injury sustained by appellant and disability, as
mentioned therein, he could not able to do any work.
10. In case of Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & another, reported in
(2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 343, Hon’ble Supreme Court
while considering the award of compensation in a permanent
disability case has held that disability sustained and
mentioned in the disability certivicate will not only be sufficient
to award compensation towards loss of future earning and it
has to be looked into the effect and impact of such disability
on the earning capacity. Relevant paras of the said judgment
reads as under:-
“9. The percentage of permanent disability is
expressed by the Doctors with reference to the
whole body, or more often than not, with reference
to a particular limb. When a disability certificate
states that the injured has suffered permanent
disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb,
it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with
reference to the whole body. The extent of disability
of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of
7a percentage of the total functions of that limb,
obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of
disability of the whole body. If there is 60%
permanent disability of the right hand and 80%
permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean
that the extent of permanent disability with
reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80%
plus 60%). If different parts of the body have
suffered different percentages of disabilities, the
sum total thereof expressed in terms of the
permanent disability with reference to the whole
body, cannot obviously exceed 100%.
10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent
disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of
compensation under the head of loss of future
earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact
of such permanent disability on his earning
capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically
apply the percentage of permanent disability as the
percentage of economic loss or loss of earning
capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of
economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of
earning capacity, arising from a permanent
disability will be different from the percentage of
permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly
assume that in all cases, a particular extent
(percentage) of permanent disability would result in
a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and
consequently, if the evidence produced show 45%
as the permanent disability, will hold that there is
45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the
cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of
8earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of
permanent disability will result in award of either
too low or too high a compensation.”
11. In case at hand, the doctor (PW-2) has not stated in his
evidence that due to nature of disability or injury suffered by
appellant on his lower limb, he will not be able to do any work.
Hence, the percentage of loss of earning capacity would not
be the same as mentioned in the disability certificate, which is
with respect to lower limb of the body only. However, the
Claims Tribunal without assigning any specific reason has
assessed loss of earning capacity at 18% as against 53.8%
mentioned in disability certificate. In one of the case, the
doctor examined to prove permanent disability has stated that
for assessing the permanent disability with respect to whole
body, when there is disability suffered by victim on one of
limbs or part of body, the disability has to be divided from 2.5.
to ascertain disability with respect to whole body. Upon
applying the said principle, percentage of disability suffered
by appellant would come to 21.52% (53.8 / 2.5) Hence, in the
opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing
loss of earning capacity at 18% in stead of 21.52%.
Accordingly, it is ordered that the appellant has suffered
21.52% permanent disability.
12. Perusal of impugned award would show that the Claims
Tribunal has not awarded anything towards future prospects.
9
In case of Sidram vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has observed that future prospects can be awarded in cases
of permanent disability. Relevant portion of the judgment
reads thus:
“31. It is now a well-settled position of law that even
in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a
result of a motor accident, the claimant can seek,
apart from compensation for future loss of income,
amounts for future prospects as well. We have
come across many orders of different tribunals and
unfortunately affirmed by different High Courts,
taking the view that the claimant is not entitled to
compensation for future prospects in accident
cases involving serious injuries resulting in
permanent disablement. That is not a correct
position of law. There is no justification to exclude
the possibility of compensation for future prospects
in accident cases involving serious injuries
resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow
reading is illogical because it denies altogether the
possibility of the living victim progressing further in
life in accident cases — and admits such possibility
of future prospects, in case of the victim’s death.”
13. In view of the above decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am
of the opinion that the Claims Tribunal has erred in not
granting compensation under the head ‘loss of future
prospects. Hence, I find it appropriate to award future
10
prospects of 40% to the appellant, who was below 40 years of
age at the time of accident and not in permanent job. It is
ordered accordingly.
14. Looking to the nature of injuries sustained by appellant and
period of treatment undergone by him, not only the amount of
compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal under other heads
like ‘pains and sufferings’, ‘nutritious diet’ is liable to be
enhanced but appellant is also entitled for compensation
under the head ‘attendant’. Accordingly, it is ordered that
appellant will be entitled for a sum of Rs.15000/- for pain and
suffering; Rs.10,000/- towards nutritious diet; Rs.10,000/-
towards attendant.
15. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proposes to recompute
the amount of compensation payable to the appellant.
16.Accordingly, income of appellant is taken as Rs.6,206/- per
month and after adding 40% towards future prospects, the
monthly income of appellant would come to Rs.8,688/- and
annual income would be Rs.1,04,256/-. Applying multiplier of
17, as applied by Claims Tribunal as per decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, total income
comes to Rs.17,73,352/-. As already held above that
appellant suffered 21.52% loss of earning capacity, therefore,
11
loss of future income occasioned to appellant would be
Rs.3,81,056/- (21.52% of 1773352). Besides this, appellant is
entitled for Rs.18000/- for loss of income during treatment,
Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.10,000/- for
special diet; Rs.10,000/- for attendant; Rs.20,000/- towards
medical expenses-cum-transportation. Thus, the appellant is
now entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,54,055/- in place
of Rs.2,13,240/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. This
amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 9%
p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its
realization.
17. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall
remain intact. Any amount already paid to appellant as
compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of
compensation as calculated above.
18.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned
SYED
ROSHAN award stands modified to the extent indicated above.
ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED Sd/- ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-