Chattisgarh High Court
Komal Rai vs Dilip Kumar Sahu on 3 April, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH PATEL
PATEL Date:
2025:CGHC:15748
2025.04.08
09:44:36
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 2006 of 2018
• Komal Rai D/o Bhupendra Narayan Rai, Aged About 19
Years, R/o Baikunth Nagar, Camp-2 (Near Rashtriya
Vidhyalay), P.S. Chavni, Tahsil And District Durg
Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant/Claimant
versus
1. Dilip Kumar Sahu S/o Kejuram Sahu, Aged About 38 Years
R/o Village Karanja Bhilai, Post Jevra Sirsa, District Durg
Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Bearing Reg.
No. CG 13 A 9895).
2. Bijendra Kumar Pandey, S/o C.P. Pandey, R/o House No.
664 Sindhya Nagar Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
(Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Bearing Reg. No. CG 13 A
9895).
3. Branch Manager, New India Insurance Company Ltd. Office
At Parakh Bhavan, Station Road, Durg, District Durg
Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Bearing
Reg. No. CG 13 A 9895).
... Respondents
For Appellant/Claimant : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh,
Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.P.
Singh, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate
on behalf of Mr. Pankaj
Agrawal, Advocate.
2
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.
Order on Board
03/04/2025
1. This appeal arises out of the impugned award dated
28.09.2018 passed by 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Durg, District-Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No.
369/2017 awarding compensation of Rs.8,94,588/- with
interest @ 8% per annum, from the date of application till its
realization, in favour of the appellant/claimant.
2. The claim of appellant/claimant before the Tribunal, in brief,
was that on 01.10.2016 at about 8.00 am, while
appellant/claimant namely Komal Rai was going to attend
her class at Shankracharya College Junwani on her Activa
vehicle bearing registration No. CG-07-AR-0170 and when
she reached near Shanti Nagar Jain Temple, respondent
No.1 - Dilip Kumar Sahu driving the offending vehicle i.e.
Truck bearing registration No. CG-13-A-9895 rashly and
negligently dashed her Activa from the front side, as a result
of which, vehicle of the appellant got stuck in the truck and
was dragged for a long distance due to which right hand and
palm of the appellant were completely crushed and she also
received other injuries over the other parts of the body. The
claimant was given initial treatment at Sector-9 Hospital,
wherein during the treatment her hand was operated twice
and grafting was also done in the hand then she was referred
to Valore Hospital for better treatment. Even after the said
treatment, the hand of the appellant could not be cured, her
palm has been completely damaged and there is permanent
disability and deformity. Upon report being made in this
regard, crime was registered against respondent no.1 (Driver
of the offending vehicle) at PS Supela, District Durg,
Chhattisgarh.
3. It was claimed that at the time of accident, the appellant was
unmarried third year student at Sankaracharya Engineering
college. The appellant, who was pursing engineering and if
the appellant would be employee then she will be certainly
got Rs.25,000/- per months but due to the disability in her
hand, the appellant will suffer a 50% loss of income.
Therefore, the claimant preferred an application before the
Claims Tribunal claiming total compensation of
Rs.39,57,830/- for disability, loss in future income, physical
and mental agony, medical expenses and also under other
heads.
4. Learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and
documents brought on record, determined the age of the
claimant/injured as 19 years and assessed the income of the
injured at Rs.4,500/- per month i.e. Rs.54,000/- per annum.
Since the claimant suffered 20% disability due to the
accident, loss of income was assessed at Rs.10,800/- per
annum and compensation has been calculated in the
following manner:-
Heads Compensation
Towards total loss of income of the Rs. 1,94,400/-
injured due to 20% disability after
applying multiplier of 18
Towards Medical Expenses Rs. 46,188/-
Loss of income for one year Rs. 54,000/-
Towards Special diet, attendant and Rs. 1,00,000/-
transportation expenses
Towards mental and physical pain Rs. 1,00,000/-
Towards expenses in future treatment Rs. 4,00,000/-
Total Rs. 8,94,588/-
5. Accordingly, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of
Rs.8,94,588/- in favour of the claimant with interest @ 8%
per annum, from the date of application till its realization.
Hence, this appeal for enhancement.
6. Learned counsel appearing for appellant/claimant submits
that the Claims Tribunal has failed to consider the nature of
injuries suffered by the appellant and awarded a total
compensation of Rs.8,94,588/- which is a very small amount
and needs to be enhanced. He submits that the income of
Appellant has been underestimated whereas her income was
much higher than the amount determined by the Tribunal.
He next submits that the Tribunal has erred in not
considering future prospects while computing compensation
as it failed to appreciate that the injured would have earned
much more if she had not met with the accident. He next
submits that due to the accident, the appellant suffered 20%
disability, due to which she would be faced the marriage
problem ,therefore, she is also entitled to get compensation
for loss of marriage prospects. Thus, prayed for modification
of the impugned award enhancing the compensation
suitably.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent No.3/Insurance Company opposes the
submission made by the counsel for appellant and submits
that in the facts and circumstances of case, the
compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and
proper and requires no further enhancement.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the
compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should
be just and proper compensation in the facts and
circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager
amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza.
10. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper
compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the
case.
11. It is an injury case. The claimant has brought on record his
disability certificate (Ex. P-117) issued by District Medical
Board, Valore Hospital, Durg (CG). According to the said
certificate, there was 20% of disability due to crushed right
hand and palm. This fact also stands proved from the
statement of Dr. R.K. Nayak who was a member of the
Medical Board and had put his signature in the disability
certificate. Thus, from the evidence it is clear that due to the
accident, the claimant sustained 20% disability.
12. As per the claim of appellant/claimant Komal Rai, she would
be earning Rs.25,000/- if she was not met with an accident.
The Tribunal has assessed the income of appellant at
Rs.45,00 per month as per notional income in absence of any
documentary proof regarding education of the injured. The
incident occurred on 01.10.2016 and as per the notification
by Labour Department, the minimum wages of semi-skilled
worker at that point of time was Rs.6,388/-. Hence, the
income of the appellant is assessed at Rs.6,388/- per month
i.e. Rs.76,656/- per annum.
13. The Tribunal has not considered future prospects while
calculating compensation. In the light of the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16
SCC 680, the future prospects would be 40% of the income
and after adding future prospects of Rs.30,662, the amount
comes to Rs.1,07,318.
14. Considering the facts of the case and also the total awarded
amount by the tribunal, I do not find it appropriate to give
any separate amount with regard to marriage prospect.
15. Considering the permanent disability of 20% as has been
assessed, the loss of income would amount to Rs.21,463 per
annum. Taking into consideration the age of claimant to be
19 yeas at the time of accident and in view of the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 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, the multiplier would be 18 and after
applying the said multiplier, loss of income due to permanent
disability amounts to Rs.3,86,334/-.
16. However, the amount given towards loss of income for 01
year of Rs. 54,000/- by the Claims Tribunal is hereby
enhanced to Rs.1,07,318/- by considering the monthly
income of Rs. 6,388/- per month and after adding 40%
towards future prospect of the injured. The compensation
amount towards special diet & nutritious food and Attendant
is 1,00,000/-, Rs.46,188/- towards medical expenses,
Rs.1,00,000/- towards physical and mental agony and
Rs.4,00,000/- towards future treatment are found to be
proper. Accordingly, the appellant/claimant would become
entitled for total compensation of Rs.11,39,840/- in the
following manner:-
Heads Modified/Enhanced
Compensation
Loss of income due to 20% 3,86,334/-
disability after applying
multiplier of 18
Medical expenses 46,188/-
Loss of income for 01 year 1,07,318/-
Special diet & nutritious 1,00,000/-
food and Attendant
Pain and suffering 1,00,000/-
Future Treatment 4,00,000/-
Total compensation Rs.11,39,840 /-
17. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as
Rs.11,39,840 /- from which after deduction of Rs.8,94,588/-
as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhanced compensation
would be Rs.2,45,252/-.
18. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The
appellant/claimant shall be entitled for the enhanced
compensation of Rs. 2,45,252/- in addition to what is
already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced
amount will carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
enhancement of the award till its realization. Accordingly, the
impugned award stands modified to the above extent and
rest of the conditions shall remain intact.
19. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimant in
writing "the enhanced amount" in this appeal as against the
award made by the Claims Tribunal. The said
communication be made in Hindi (Deonagri) language and
the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co-
ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area
wherein the claimant resides.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Sourabh P.
