Chattisgarh High Court
Pushkar Sahu vs Ashwani Kumar Kashyap on 23 June, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2025:CGHC:26930
Digitally signed
by RAVVA UTTEJ
KUMAR RAJU
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Order Reserved on 24.03.2025.
Order Passed on 23.06.2025
MAC No. 647 of 2017
1 - Pushkar Sahu S/o Late Shivlal Sahu, aged about 41 years, R/o House of
the Kishor Sahu, Bangalipara Gali No. 03, Sarkanda, P.S. Sarkanda, Tahsil
and District Bilaspur, C.G. ..............Claimant
... Appellant
Versus
1 - Ashwani Kumar Kashyap S/o Yadram Kashyap, R/o Village Kamta, P.S.
Shivrinarayan, Tahsil Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir-Champa,
C.G. ...............Non Applicants/ Driver of Tractor No. C.G.11/A/6005 and
Trolley No. C.G./11/ZG/2490,
2 - Narad Prasad Kashyap S/o Ganesh Prasad Kashyap, R/o Village Kamta,
P.S. Shivrinarayan, Tahsil Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir-Champa,
C.G. ...............Owner of Tractor No. C.G.11/A/6005 and Trolley No.
C.G./11/ZG/2490, District : Janjgir-Champa, C.G.
... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Aman Kesharwani, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. H.V. Sharma, Advocate.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
C.A.V. Order
1. The Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as
‘the Act of 1988’) questioning the legality and propriety of the award
dated 01.02.2017 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident
2
Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.
37/2013, whereby the learned Cliams Tribunal has awarded the claim
against the appellant to the tune of Rs.1,55,000/- with interest of 7.5%
per annum from the date of application till realization in favour of the
appellant/claimant.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 07.04.2013 the present
appellant/claimant was coming in his Motor cycle bearing registration
No. C.G./4K/5606 along with his friend Nand Kumar Shrivas from
Village Pakariya to Tiwari Para. When they reached near Morda turn
located in the main road the respondent No. 1 by driving offending
vehicle tractor and trolley bearing registration No. C.G./11/A/6005 and
C.G./11/ZG/2490 in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motor
cycle of the present appellant as a result of which the
appellant/claimant received injuries on his head, chest, both the legs
and hands and also internal injuries on his body. Thereafter, the
appellant was admitted to hospital and the present appellant/claimant
had underwent prolonged treatment and suffering a permanent
disability. The present appellant has proved actionable negligence
against the respondents in order to prove the pecuniary and special
loss suffered by him. The evidence adduced by him remained
unrebutted and unchallenged. The present appellant is a cultivator
which is the only source of his income for maintaining his family. Due to
this accident he was prevented from cultivating his field for
considerable period resulting loss of his income and also for the family
and the appellant/claimant is suffering loss of efficiency after the
accident resulting permanent loss of his income.
3. The Learned Tribunal while concluding the proceeding held that the
3
disablement is temporary in nature on the basis of the injury certificate
exhibit 97C and also held that since the certificate does not bear any
endowment as to the nature of the disablement, therefore, it cannot be
said that the disablement is of permanent in nature and only allowed
the expenses incurred towards treatment in the hospital and did not
assess the loss of efficiency of the appellant. The total amount
including conventional heads is Rs. 1,55,000/- out of which Rs.
1,15,000/- was spent for treatment.
4. The learned Tribunal has failed to conduct an enquiry as contemplated
under Section 168 of Motor Vehicle Act read with Rule 226 of M.P./C.G.
Motor Vehicle Rules 1994 and acted as a silent spectator. No efforts
were being made in order to award just and proper compensation. The
amount of compensation awarded cannot be said to be just and proper.
Hence, this appeal on following grounds amongst other.
5. The Claims Tribunal after hearing counsel for the respective parties
and considering the material available on the record by the impugned
award granted a total compensation of Rs.1,55,000/- in favour of the
claimant with interest of 7.5% from the date of award till realization.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned award is
bad-in-law as well as on fact, arbitrary hence liable to be enhanced
suitably and the appellant is entitled for just and proper compensation.
The appellant is deprived of his right to get just and proper
compensation and also from fair adjudication of his claim case. The
learned Tribunal could have procured information from competent
authority by holding an enquiry under Rule 226 MP/CG State Motor
Vehicle Rules 1994 to ascertain, the income of the appellant on the
basis of the present scenario of the society. The compensation ought to
4
have been assessed on the basis of the permanent functional
disablement occurred to the appellant. The learned Tribunal has
awarded 6% interest which ought to have been 9% according to the
dictum of Hon’ble Supreme court given in Uphar tragedy case. The
compensation is assessed on a golden scale and the same cannot be
said to be just compensation, hence the impugned award is liable to be
enhanced in all counts/heads.
7. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Ramchandrappa v. The
Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Company Limited
reported in AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2951 and also on the decision of
Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh & Anr reported in AIR
2008 Supreme Court 2396.
8. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 supporting the impugned
award and submits that the witness Dr. Hari Singh Chandel admitted in
his cross-examination in paras 7 & 8 that handicapped certificate is
only for leg and not for the whole body and also he was unable to
explain that what effect would it be to the appellant’s work due to his
disability. So, the learned Claims Tribunal rightly apreciated the oral
and documentary evidence and awarded just and proper
compensation. So, this appeal is without any merit and is liable to be
dismissed.
9. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
10. It is clear from record of the learned Claims Tribunal that the learned
Claims Tribunal finds that accident was occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of respondent No. 01, but in issue No. 02, the learned
5
Claims Tribunal finds that the claimant was unable to prove that due to
accident he became handicapped. The applicant filed disability
certificate Ex. A-97 which was issued by the medical board and Dr.
Hari Singh Chandel, who was member of District Medical Board also
admitted this fact that they have examined the appellant and calculated
40% disability and issued disability certificate Ex. A-97 and he admitted
his signature on A to A part and also identiifed signature of other
members of Medical Board. In para 5, Dr. Hari Singh Chandel admitted
this fact that it was true that treating doctor was not member of Medical
Board, however, he himself stated that ”according to the prescribed
procedure by the doctor who issued the certificate and verified it
according to the current government rules and then issued the
document from the District Medical Board vide Ex. A-97, but the
learned Claims Tribunal did not appreciate this fact and only on this
suggestion that the appellant had disability on his leg not on whole
body, gave negative finding and issue No. 02. So, this finding is not
sustainable regarding disability, but the appellant has not proved this
fact that what loss has been incurred in the income due to this
disability.
11. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Ramchandrappa (supra) held in
paragraph 13 which is provided as under:-
“13. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, this Court,
while considering the award of compensation to the victim of
motor accident for loss of future earning due to some
permanent physical disability, has observed:
“Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of
6injuries, 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, the 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 earning
capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in
award of either too low or too high a compensation.
What requires to be assesed by the Tribunal is the effect of the
permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after
assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the
income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future
loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to
determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some
cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may
find that the percentage loss of earning capacity as a result of the
permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of
permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt
the said percentage for determination of compensation. (See for
example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New
7India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co.
Ltd. (AIR 2010 SCC 3741)
Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any
permanent disability and, if so, the extent of such permanent disability.
This means that the Tribunal should consider and decidewith reference
to the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement is permanent or
temporary.
(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is
permanent total disablement or permanent partial
disablement;
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with
reference to any specific limb, then the effect of
such disablement of the limb on the functioning of
the entire body, that is, the permanent disability
sufered by the person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability
then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the
loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there
is permanent disabliity then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After
the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the
claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether
such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning
capacity.”
12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and for the fact
that the appellant was admited in the hospital from 08.04.2013 to
8
25.04.2013, meaning thereby he was not able to work for at least 06
months, but the learned Claims Tribunal did not award any amount
towards loss of income occurred for the said period. Therefore, this
amount is liable to be suitably enhanced.
S.No. Head Calculation (in rupees)
1 For loss of income Rs. 4,943 x 6 = Rs.
during treatment for 06 29,658/-
months.
2. For medical expenses 1,25,000/-
3. For Pain and Suffering Rs. 50,000/-
4. For Special Diet Rs. 25,000/-
5. For Transport Rs. 25,000/-
6. Total compensation Rs. 2,54,658/-
awarded
13. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the claimant/appellant is held
entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 2,54,658/-. Since the Claims
Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 1,55,000/-, after deducting the said
amount, the claimant/appellant is entitled for enhanced amount of Rs.
99,658/-. This additional amount of compensation shall carry interest
@ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till realization. The
amount received by the claimant, if any, shall be adjusted in the
enhanced sum. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award
shall remain intact.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
Judge
U.K. Raju