Chattisgarh High Court
Bhagwan Singh vs Sunil Kumar Yadav on 1 April, 2026
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1401 of 2015
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON 20.03.2016
PRONOUNCED ON 01.04.2026
Bhagwan Singh S/o Late Tilak Singh, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village
Sarayeepali, P. S. Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, (Claimant)
Digitally
signed by
ALLENA
ANJANI
KUMAR
Date:
... Appellant
2026.04.01
15:50:25
+0530 versus
1 - Sunil Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Ramlochan Yadav, Aged About 23 Years R/o
Village Motimpur, P. S. Jarhagaon, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.........Driver
Dumper No. C G 10 A 8965,
2 - Saurabh Mishra S/o Shri Ashok Mishra, Aged About 34 Years R/o
Kududand, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.........Owner Dumper No. C G 10 A 8965,
3 - The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office, In Front Of Rajeev Plaza, Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh........Insurer Dumper No. C G 10 A 8965,
... Respondents
For Appellant : Mrs. Bhawna Chandrawanshi appears on behalf of Mrs. Bhagwati Kashyap, Advocate.
For Respondents 1 & 2 : None, though served.
For Respondent 3 : Shri Shivansh Gopal appears on behalf of
Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate.
(HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)
C A V Judgment
1. This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation passed by 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) (for short, the Claims Tribunal) in Claim Case No.147/2014 vide impugned award dated 22.07.2015. Parties to this 2 appeal shall be referred herein after as per their description before the Tribunal.
2. As per the pleadings of the claim application, the accident occurred on 01.06.2012. The injured by name Bhagwan Singh, 38 years was walking from Kota to village Sarapali and as soon as he reached the Pataita barrier, he was knocked down by the Dumper bearing registration No.CG-20-A/8965 (in short, the offending vehicle) being driven by Non-applicant No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and on account of such accident, injured's both legs were crushed. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was owned by Non-applicant No.2 and insured by Non-applicant No.3/insurer.
3. Owing to accident, the injured filed a claim application under Section 166 of the MV Act seeking total compensation of Rs.40,30,782/- while inter alia pleading that he was 38 years at the time of accident and was working in P.W.D. Kota as Assistant Grade-III and used to earn Rs.16,979/- per month. It was also pleaded by him that due to accident, the right leg was amputated and a rod was inserted in his left leg and was unable to walk and perform any duty.
4. The claim application was resisted by the Non-applicants, in particular, the Non-applicant No.3/insurer resisted on various grounds including that the insurance company taking a plea that there is violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
5. Learned Claims Tribunal framed issues on the basis of pleadings and decided the same in favour of the appellant/claimant in Clam Case and awarded the compensation of Rs.03,73,027/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of award till its realisation and directed the Non-applicant/respondent No.3 to pay the entire compensation to the 3 claimant. Hence, this appeal by the claimant.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit that the claimant was grievously injured on account of vehicular accident and owing to such accident, near the thigh of his right leg was amputated whereas a rod was inserted in his left leg during treatment and operation. He was a Government servant and at the time of accident, he was 38 years old and on account of accident, he was admitted in Hospital for more than 3 months 10 days, i.e., from 01.06.2012 to 09.08.2012 and during this period, he was on leave and loss of leave has also not been awarded and looking to his monthly pay of Rs.16,979/-, loss of leave for three months has to be awarded. She would further submit that under the head of pain and suffering, attendant charges for his remaining life and that loss of amenities have also not been properly awarded. She would next contend that while the claimant was under treatment, multiple operations were conducted, therefore, amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is to be enhanced suitably. She would also submit that for purchase of wheel chair, some amount needs to be awarded. She would next contend that the Tribunal granted Rs.1,80,000/- towards attendant charges after taking Rs.1,000/- per month and after applying multiplier of 15 whereas it should be Rs.4,000/- per month. On these premises, learned counsel urged that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on meager side, which may suitably be enhanced.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 would submit that the offending vehicle was insured with his insurance company on the date of accident and insurance company has not preferred any appeal against the impugned award. He would further submit that the 4 claimant was a Government employee and as per the statement, he has not suffered any loss of income and his own statement shows that his monthly income was regularly being enhanced from time to time and on other heads, just and reasonable amounts have been awarded, therefore, the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and reasonable and there is no scope for further enhancement.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record of the Tribunal including the evidence adduced by the parties.
9. Perusal of record would reveal that on account of accident, the claimant sustained injuries on his both legs and as per Dr. Ashish Mundra, (A.W.3), the claimant was found three injuries, 1) the bones and muscles of the right thigh were crushed and blood circulation had stopped in the front, 2) both the bones of the left leg were broken, due to which, the left leg appeared bent and 3) the skin on the left paw was completely torn away and this witness operated all the three injuries at different times. Further, as per his statement, an amputation operation was performed above the knee of the right leg, the second operation was performed to join the broken bone of the left leg and the third was performed for skin grafting on the toe of the left foot. As per Dr. S.S.Bhatia (P.W.4), the claimant sustained 80% permanent disability and the certificate issued in this regard was exhibited as Ex.P.7. Ex.P.10 is document issued by the Mundra Hospital wherein it was shown that the claimant was admitted from from 01.06.2012 to 09.08.2012. Besides above, the A.W.2 Sushila Kumar is a care-taker of the claimant and he was being paid a sum of Rs.4,000/- by the 5 claimant.
10. The learned Claims Tribunal has answered the issue No.1 in affirmative by holding that Non-applicant No.1 was liable for cause of accident and the claimant sustained grievous injuries including permanent disability to the extent of 80%. This apart, A.W.1 Bhagwan Singh stated that he was working in Public Works Department and admitted in cross-examination that he was holding the same post which he held before the accident and was not demoted even after the accident and besides that, he was receiving higher salary than he was receiving at the time of the accident.
11. The Tribunal, considering the evidence and material available on record, and further taking a reasonable view and granting partial benefit, awarded Rs.1,000/- towards attendant charges and after applying the multiplier of 15 looking to the age of claimant as 38, worked out an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rs.1,000/- x 12 x 15), which in the considered opinion, is very on lower side and needs to be enhanced @ Rs.2,000/- per month for his future requirement of attendant and care-taking expenses. Further, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of income during treatment. Furthermore, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards physical and mental agony, which is also a meager amount. Moreover, on account of accident, the claimant's legs were operated and out of which, his right leg was amputated and a rod was inserted in his left leg during treatment, therefore, a wheel chair is required for his movement in future.
12. Considering the material available on record and further considering the nature and number of injuries including amputation and taking into 6 account his period of hospitalisation and loss of income during treatment and looking to the requirement of attendant expenses and future of the applicant for his proper movement through wheel chair and also loss of amenities, this Court re-computes the compensation by taking into account his monthly salary of Rs.16,979/- in the following manner :-
Sl. Description Amount in Rs.
No.
1. Attendant & care-taking expenses (2,000 x 12 x 3,60,000/-
15)
2. Attendant's expenses during treatment (as 12,000/-
awarded by the MACT)
3. Special diet during treatment (as awarded by the 12,000/-
MACT)
4. Travelling expenses during hospitalization and 6,000/-
treatment (as awarded by the MACT)
5. Medical expenses (as awarded by the MACT) 1,43,027/-
6. Physical and mental agony during treatment and 3,00,000/-
loss of amenities as injured's right leg was
amputated and a rod was inserted in left leg.
7. Loss of income during treatment for 3 months 50,937/-
(Rs.16,979 x 03 = Rs.50,937/-
8. For purchase of wheel chair and supporters 50,000/-
Total Rs. 9,33,964/-
Awarded amount by the Tribunal Rs. 3,73,027/-
Enhanced amount by this Court Rs. 5,60,937/-
13. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. Hence, the
claimant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.5,60,937/-. The additional amount shall carry interest as made by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount with interest shall be deposited by the insurer/respondent No.3. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani