Chattisgarh High Court
Omprakash Yadav vs Mohd. Sagir on 8 May, 2025
-1-
2025:CGHC:21280
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 319 of 2020
Omprakash Yadav S/o Kapil Yadav Aged About 18 Years Resident Of
Village- Chhote Tumnar Kotwar Para Police Station Geedam District
South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh
... Appellant (s)
versus
1 - Mohd. Sagir S/o Mohd. Ibrahim Aged About 35 Years Resident Of
P.G.A. Construction Village Sargipal Tusel Near Primary School Police
Station Parpa District Bastar Chhattisgarh
(Driver Of The Vehicle)
2 - M/s P.S.A. Construction Through Sanjay Singhal S/o Premchand
Singhal Aged About 45 Years Resident Of House No. B-24 Chobey
Colony Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
(Owner Of The Vehicle)
3 - The Branch Manager The United India Insurance Company Limited,
Branch Office Anupam Talkies Chowk Jagdalpur District Bastar
Chhattisgarh
(Insurer)
... Respondent(s)
__________________________________________________________
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Praveen Kumar Dhurandhar, Advocate
For Resp. No.2 : Mr. Sourabh Sonwani Advocate on behalf of
Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate
For Resp. No.3 :Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of
Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate
_______________________________________________________
SHUBHAM
DEY
Digitally
signed by
SHUBHAM
DEY
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Judgment On Board
08/05/2025
1. Notice sent to respondent No.1 was returned un-served with a note
"not residing in given address"
2. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the liability to satisfy the
award is upon non-applicants jointly and severally and the first
liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon respondent
No.3/Insurance Company. Liability to satisfy the amount of
compensation is not disputed by learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.3/Insurance Company.
3. In the aforementioned facts of the case, service of notice upon
respondent No.1 is dispensed with.
4. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the
case is heard finally.
5. This is the claimant's appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "Act of 1988") seeking enhancement
of amount of compensation awarded by learned Second
Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur (CG) vide
award dated 30.11.2019 passed in Claim Case No.22 of 2019.
6. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that applicant/claimant
filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the
learned Second Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur,
pleading therein that he was working as a conductor/cleaner in the
Tipper vehicle CG 04 JD/6207. On 05.12.2017 at about 11.30 am,
he was going towards Darbha after loading iron ore from Kodenar
Crusher Plant. On the way, driver of the truck No. CG 04
HR/3580, to attend the nature's call, had parked the truck on the
road near the village Mavalibhata Hadma bridge . At that time Sagir
Mohammad (non-applicant No.1), driving the Tipper truck CG 04
JD/6207 (offending vehicle) rashly and carelessly, dashed against
the parked truck CG 04 HR/3580 from behind due to which the
cabin of the Tipper truck CG 04 JD/6207 was badly damaged. The
applicant was sitting in the cabin and suffered fatal injuries all over
his body. It was stated in the application that he was a healthy
person of 18 years of age. He was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month
while working as a conductor/cleaner. After the accident, his left leg
was amputated on account of motor accidental injury, due to which
he has become permanently disabled and is unable to do his daily
routine work. He had to hire an assistant. The applicant has
submitted a claim for compensation of Rs. 35,29,000/- from non-
applicants.
7. Non-applicant No.1 in his written statement has specifically denied
pleadings made in the claim application and has specifically stated
that, he was driving the vehicle at normal speed and the vehicle in
front was standing in the middle of the road without indication and
his eyes were dazzled by the light of the vehicle coming from the
front. On the date of the accident, the driver/non-applicant-1 had a
valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle. The said
vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3/ insurance company,
hence, non-applicant No.3/ insurance company is liable to pay
compensation, if any.
8. Non-applicant No.2 has been proceeded ex-parte in the claim
proceedings, no reply has been filed on his behalf.
9. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed its written statement
denying all the pleadings made in the claim application and
specifically stated that the applicant was not working as a
conductor/cleaner on the date of the accident but was travelling as
a free passenger. The insurance policy has been taken for carrying
own luggage and not for commercial purpose. The driver did not
have a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the
accident, hence, non-applicant No.3 is not liable to pay any amount
of compensation.
10. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and
evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the
date of incident, the offending vehicle was being driven by non-
applicant No.1 rashly and negligently due to which an accident
occurred in which applicant/claimant suffered serious injury
resulting in his permanent disability. Recording a finding that
breach of the conditions of insurance policy was not found proved,
learned Claims Tribunal held non-applicants liable to pay amount of
compensation to claimant. Assessing monthly income of the
applicant/claimant as Rs.5000/- and calculating the loss suffered by
the claimants under different heads, awarded total amount of
compensation of Rs.7,03,000/ -.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants raises a short point
for enhancement of the amount of compensation, that while
considering the income of the claimant who was stated to be
working as Conductor/Cleaner in the offending vehicle, learned
Claims Tribunal erred in not considering the date of accident and
wages prevailing on the date of accident as prescribed under
Minimum Wages Act. He submits that learned Claims Tribunal has
not awarded sufficient amount under the heads- medical expenses,
expenses towards future medical treatment, pain and suffering and
special diet. He submits that looking the permanent disability
suffered by the applicant to the extent of 60%, which will have an
adverse impact on his future life, learned Tribunal ought to have
awarded compensation under the head 'loss towards future
prospect'. He prays for enhancement of the amount of
compensation suitably.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the
submission of learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and
submits that the amount of compensation awarded is just and
proper in the facts of the case and it does not call for any
interference.
13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the
records of the Claims Tribunal.
14. There is no challenge to the finding recorded by Tribunal that non-
applicant No.1 is the driver of offending vehicle, which caused the
accident, the owner of the offending vehicle is non-applicant No. 2
and the insurer of said vehicle is non-applicant No. 3.
15. So far as the ground raised by learned counsel for the
appellant/claimant with regard to assessing monthly income of
claimant is concerned, even if claimant failed to establish nature of
occupation and income then also he is to be treated as Labourer
and his income is to be assessed considering the wages prevailing,
price index, cost of living or as per the minimum wages notified
under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
16. For the purpose of assessing income of claimant on notional basis
in absence of any specific evidence, this Court finds it appropriate
to take help of the Notification issued by the Commissioner-cum-
Competent Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948,
Chhattisgarh, Raipur. In the Notification for 'Class-C zone/area' for
'unskilled labourer', monthly income has been prescribed as
Rs.7,800/- per month. In absence of admissible piece of evidence
of occupation and income of claimant, on the date of accident, if the
claimant is to be treated as Labourer, his income should not have
been less than Rs.7,800/- per month (minimum wages fixed by
competent authority), hence, the income of the claimant as pleaded
in claim application cannot be said to be of higher side and it is
assessed as Rs.6,000 per month instead of Rs.5000/- per month
as held by learned Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly.
17. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the applicant with
regard to award of compensation under the head "future prospects"
is concerned, in the opinion of this Court, there shall enhancement
of 40% in the assessed income of the claimant towards 'loss of
future prospects' as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors.
(2017) 16 SCC 680. It is ordered accordingly.
18. Appellant/claimant has to live his entire life ahead with the current
disability. He cannot enjoy his social life like an ordinary man and,
therefore, I find it appropriate to award Rs.40,000/- towards 'loss of
amenities of life'. It is ordered accordingly. Further, looking to the
fact that the applicant is a labourer, he might have suffered loss of
income during the period taken in his treatment, he is also entitled
for grant of compensation under the head 'loss of income' of four
months i.e. Rs.24,000/- (6000 x 4). It is ordered accordingly.
19. Learned Claims Tribunal considering the age of applicant/claimant
to be 18 years, disability certificate (Ex.A-1) produced by claimant
on record, awarded an amount of Rs.6,48,000/- towards 'loss
suffered due to disability'; Rs.15,000/- towards 'medical expenses',
Rs.10,000/- towards 'future treatment expenses' which in the
opinion of this Court does not warrant any interference. However,
looking to the nature of disability suffered by the applicant, I am
inclined to award Rs.40,000/- under the head 'physical and mental
pain/agony' and Rs.20,000/- towards 'special diet'.
Applicant/claimant is also entitled for compensation of Rs.10,000/-
under the head 'transportation charges'. It is ordered accordingly.
20. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I find it appropriate to re-
compute the amount of compensation as under:-
S. N. Heads Compensation
1. Compensation based on disability : Rs. 18,14,400/-
suffered by applicant
A. 6000 x 12= 72000
B. 72000 x 40% = 28,800
C. (72000+28800) X 18 = 1814400
2. Appellant suffered 60% of Rs. 10,88,640/-
permanent disability,
18,14,400 x 60 %= 10,88,640/-
3. Expenditure incurred towards : Rs. 15,000/-
medical treatment
4. Expenses towards future : Rs. 10,000/-
treatment
5. Physical and Mental pain/agony : Rs. 40,000/-
6. Special Diet : Rs. 20,000/-
7. Transportation charges : Rs. 10,000/-
8. Loss of amenities of life : Rs. 40,000/-
Total compensation : Rs. 12,23,640/-
21. Now the appellant/claimant is awarded total compensation of
Rs.12,23,640/- instead of Rs.7,03,000/- as awarded by the Claims
Tribunal.
22. Aforementioned total amount of compensation shall carry interest
@ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its
realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the
claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of
compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this
Court. Other conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.
23. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified
to the extent as indicated herein above.
Sd/--/- Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Praveen
