Chattisgarh High Court
Pradeep Alias Pappu Bharti vs Poonam Das Alias Raja Manikpuri on 24 March, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
Page No.1
2025:CGHC:13982
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 337 of 2020
1 - Pradeep Alias Pappu Bharti S/o Pawan Bharti Aged About 23 Years
Presently Residing Through Khuleshwar Bharti At Village Babutola (Satnami
Para), Post Navagaon, Tahsil Police Station And District Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - Poonam Das Alias Raja Manikpuri S/o Dhruvdas Manikpur Aged About 27
Years R/o Village Dhara, Police Station, Mohla, Tahsil Dongargarh, District
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
2 - Shiv Kumar Manikpuri S/o Dhruvdas Manikpuri Aged About 20 Years R/o
Village Dhara, Police Station Mohara, Tahsil Dongargarh, District-
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
3 - Branch Manager Iffo Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Branch
Rajnandgaon, New Circuit House Road, Near State Bank Rajnandgaon,
District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
_________________________________________________________
For Appellant : Mr. Anuj Kumar Pandey, Advocate on
behalf of Mr. S.S. Baghel, Advocate.
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Himanshu Yadu, Advocate on behalf of
Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order On Board
24/03/2025
1. Appellant-claimant has filed this appeal challenging the award
dated 04.11.2019 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Motor
Digitally
Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon
signed by
NISHA
NISHA DUBEY
DUBEY Date:
2025.04.02
10:33:46
+0530
(for short 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.113/2018
whereby the Claims Tribunal allowed claim application of
claimant in part and awarded compensation of Rs.5,21,100/- to
claimant/appellant along with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of
filing of claim application.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 15.09.2017, appellant and
his friend Manish Soni were going to Mohara from Dongargarh on
motorcycle. Appellant was travelling as a pillion rider. When they
reached Sivni Kala, vehicle bearing registration No.CG08-AC-
1931 which was coming from opposite direction in high speed
and driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1
herein, hit the motorcycle and caused accident. In the said
accident, appellant suffered multiple injuries including fracture in
his leg. He was admitted in Government Hospital, Rajnandgoan.
During treatment, he underwent surgery and a rod was implanted
in his right leg. As a result of said accident, appellant suffered
60% permanent disability. Appellant filed application before the
Claims Tribunal claiming Rs.17,50,000/- as compensation inter
alia on the ground that, at the time of accident, he was 27 years
old, earning Rs.10000/- per month by working as labourer,
however, after the accident he is unable to do work.
3. Non-applicant No.1 & 2 submitted joint reply to claim application
and denied the factum of accident with offending vehicle. It was
pleaded that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent
driving by driver of motorcycle. Accident has not occurred from
the offending vehicle. Report has been lodged on false ground.
On the date of accident, their vehicle was duly insured with non-
applicant No.3, therefore, amount of compensation, if any,
awarded can be recovered from the non-applicant No.3
Insurance Company.
4. Non-applicant No.3 Insurance Company submitted reply to claim
application and denied the fact that appellant suffered injuries in
the accident caused by offending vehicle. On the date of
accident, non-applicant No.1 was not possessing valid and
effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle and the
offending vehicle was being used in violation of the conditions of
insurance policy. Since the accident was result of head-on
collusion, the principle of contributory negligence would apply.
5. The Claims Tribunal after appreciating pleadings and evidence
brought on record by the respective parties has partly allowed
claim application held that, accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle; claimant
suffered permanent disablement in the said accident, however,
there is no loss of income due to disability; there was no violation
of any condition of insurance policy and accordingly awarded
Rs.5,21,100/- as compensation.
6. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant submits that learned
Claims Tribunal erred in awarding the compensation on lower
side. Appellant/claimant suffered 60% permanent disability, which
is also proved by producing disability certificate as Ex.P/11 and
examining Dr. Prakash Bhalerao(AW-1), however, learned Claims
Tribunal has assessed loss of income towards permanent
disability to the extent of 35% only, which is erroneous. He next
contended that the income assessed by learned Claims Tribunal
treating the appellant to be a Laborer @ Rs.6,000/- per month is
also on lower side. Appellant has categorically pleaded and
stated before the Court that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per
month by working as laborer and after the accident, he is unable
to do the laborer work due to the permanent disability suffered by
him. Learned Claims Tribunal ought to have awarded the amount
of compensation treating loss of income to the extent of 60%.
The Claims Tribunal though held that the appellant suffered
permanent disability, however, no amount is added towards the
future prospects while computing the amount of compensation
and meager amount is awarded on other head.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company does
not dispute submission made by counsel for appellant that the
liability to satisfy the amount of compensation awarded by
learned Claims Tribunal is upon respondent No.3. He however
opposes the submission made by counsel for appellant on merits
of the case and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal
has awarded just amount of compensation in facts and
circumstances of the case. Though the appellant suffered
permanent disability to the extent of 60%, however, it is only with
respect to one part of the body and it cannot be treated for the
whole body. Doctor examined by the appellant has stated that the
disability may reduce by taking physiotherapy and other
treatment, therefore, there is no error in the finding recorded by
learned Claims Tribunal with respect to the loss of income
suffered by the appellant due to permanent disability to the extent
of 35%. He submits that other part of the award is also just and
proper, hence, does not call for any interference.
8. Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused
documents available on record and also record of the Claims
Tribunal.
9. Appellant has produced copy of the medical documents as also
permanent disability certificate as Ex.P/11. Perusal of medical
documents would show that the appellant suffered fracture over
right femur and right Tibia and Fibula. Disability certificate Ex.P/11
produced before the learned Claims Tribunal would show that it is
issued by Medical Board, Rajnandgaon mentioning that appellant
suffered 60% permanent disability. To prove permanent disability
certificate, appellant examined Dr. Prakash Bhalerao as AW-1. In
his evidence he stated that the appellant suffered fracture of right
Tibia, Fibula and right femur. Right femur was operated and there
was infection. There was stiffness on the right knee and right leg
was found to be shortened by 5 cm. In examination, this witness
admitted that the percentage as mentioned with disability
certificate is with respect to the part of the body for which disability
certificate is not for the whole body.
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar
and another, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 has considered as to
how the loss of income is to be considered if the claimant suffered
permanent disability over any part of the body. Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that in all the cases the percentage of the disability
as mentioned in the disability certificate for part of the body is not
to be taken as percentage of the loss of income, but the
permanent disability for the whole body is to be considered in the
light of nature of disability and the injury suffered by
appellant/claimant. Relevant paras of the said judgment reads
thus:-
"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 a 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 earning capacity to the
extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result
in award of either too low or too high a compensation."
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, I do not find any error in the
view taken by learned Claims Tribunal that the disability suffered
by the appellant for the whole body and treating loss of income to
the extent of 35% and the said finding is upheld.
12. With respect to the submission made by learned counsel for the
appellant that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the
income of appellant Rs.6,000/- per month is concerned, learned
Claims Tribunal has found that the claimant has failed to prove the
income by leading documentary evidence. In absence of proof of
income, it will be proper to take the help of the minimum wages as
fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act
for the purpose of awarding the amount of compensation.
13. In the case at hand, accident is dated 15.9.2017, the minimum
wages fixed by the competent authority for the period from
1.10.2017 till 31.3.2018 is Rs.7,800/- for unskilled labor for 'B'
Class city, hence, I find it appropriate to take monthly income of
the appellant as Rs,7,800/- treating him to be the unskilled
laborer.
14. Once this Court comes to the conclusion and upheld the finding
recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that the appellant
suffered 60% permanent disability and 35% loss of income it will
be appropriate to apply the principles of loss of future prospects
as held by Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs. Pranay Setthi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 for
computing the loss of future income. As on the date of accident
the appellant was 23 years of age, therefore, according to the
decision of Hon'blse Supreme Court in case of Pranay Sethi
(supra) there will be addition 40% of the income towards the loss
of future prospects and after applying 40% to income of appellant,
total income comes to Rs.10920/- (7800+3120) and annual
income of appellant comes to Rs.1,31,040/- (10920x12). In case
at hand, on the date of accident appellant-injured was in the age
group of 20 to 25 years, as held by Claims Tribunal, and therefore,
as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma
(supra) multiplier applicable would be '18'. By applying multiplier
of 18, as applied by Claims Tribunal, to annual loss of
dependency, total loss of dependency comes to Rs.23,58,720/-
(131040x18). As already upheld in preceding paragraph that
appellant suffered 35% loss of earning capacity, therefore, total
loss of income suffered by appellant comes to Rs.8,25,552,/-
(35% of 2358720).
15. Considering the period of treatment, nature of injuries, surgeries
underwent and medical documents, the Claims Tribunal has
arrived at a conclusion that the claimant would not able to perform
his work for a period of alteast six months and awarded
Rs.36,000/- under the head of loss of income during laid up
period, treating monthly income of appellant to be Rs.6000/- per
month. Since this Court in preceding para has already determined
the income of appellant to be Rs.7,800/- per month taking help of
the minimum wage notification, the amount awarded under the
head of laid up period also deserves to be enhanced. Accordingly,
it is ordered that appellant will be entitled for a sum of Rs.46,800/-
(7800 x6) towards the loss of income during laid down period of
six months in place of Rs.36,000/- as awarded by Claims Tribunal.
16. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards the
pains and suffering which in the opinion of this Court is on lower
side. The appellant suffered fracture of right Tibia, Fibula and
fracture of femur bone for which he has also to underwent surgery.
His leg is shortened. He suffered permanent disability over his leg
and even on the date of examination by the Medical Board the
doctor found infection in the fracture of femur bone. In these
circumstances, I find it appropriate to award Rs.30,000/- towards
the pain and suffering instead of Rs.10,000/- as awarded by the
Claims Tribunal.
17. The amount of compensation awarded towards special diet,
attendant and transportation is also on lower side, therefore, it is
enhanced from Rs.1,500/- each to Rs.5,000/- each. Appellant/
claimant will also be entitled for loss of amenities in the life as he
suffered 5 cm shortening of leg stiffness in knee joint, therefore, I
find it appropriate to award Rs.25,000/- towards to loss of
amenities in life as also Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance
expenses. Now appellant/claimant will be entitled for total
compensation of Rs.9,47,352/- (825552+46800+30000+5000+
5000 + 25000+10000). The amount of compensation shall carry
interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of application till its realization.
Rests of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.
Any amount already paid to claimant/appellant as compensation
shall be adjusted.
18. The impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated
above. Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Nisha
