Chattisgarh High Court
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Rameshwar Das on 16 September, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:47584
NAFR
NIRMALA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAO
MAC No. 1626 of 2019
1 - United India Insurance Company Limited Through Its Branch Manager, Branch
Office T P Nagar, Korba Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba,
Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Rameshwar Das S/o Nirgun Das Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Barpali, Police
Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Hall Mikam Behind Police Station
Pali, Police Station And Tahsil Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Shobharam Chouhan (Gandharv) S/o Raghuvar Singh Chouhan R/o Village
Damiya, Tahsil And Police Station Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District
: Korba, Chhattisgarh
3 - Sandip Ralhan S/o Purushottam Lal Ralhan R/o E 403, Sai Parisar Shrikant
Verma Marg Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant/ Insurance Company: Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 : Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
16.09.2025
1. The appellant/ Insurance Company has filed this appeal seeking the
following prayer:
"It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned award dated
01.04.2019, passed by Shri Prashant Parasar, Additional
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal of Additional Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Katghora, Distt.- Korba(C.G.), in Claim Case
No. 169/2017, against the Appellant Insurance Company may
kindly be reduced up to the extent permissible under the law
in the interest of justice."
2. Learned counsel for the appellant/ Insurance Company would submit
that respondent No.1/ claimant sustained injuries over his right hand,
including a fracture. He would contend that the medical officer
assessed the permanent disability 75.73% and the functional disability
30%. However, the learned Tribunal, without any proper basis,
considered the functional disability to be 50% and assessed the
compensation accordingly. He would further submit that since the
claimant was working as Security Guard and was not a salaried
employee, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the future
prospects 40% instead of 50%. Thus, it is contended that the learned
Tribunal committed an error of law by passing an award at higher side.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit
as the petitioner was working as a Security Guard and was getting a
fixed salary from his employer, therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly
assessed the loss of future prospect to the extent of 50%. He would
further contend that while assessing the percentage of permanent
disability with regard to the whole body, the corresponding loss of
earning capacity may also be considered at the same level, depending
on the nature of the disability and the occupation of the claimant. He
would submit that the right hand of respondent No.1/ claimant was
fractured and the right wrist was paralyzed. Therefore, the learned
Tribunal assessed the functional disability to the extent of 50% and
awarded compensation accordingly. He has placed reliance on the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raj
Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents present on record.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Kumar (supra), in
paragraph 19 held as under:
"19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above :
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries),
do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to
the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the
percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the
percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the
percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases,
where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that
percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as
percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who
examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his
permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the
extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is
something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with
reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different
percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons,
depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job,
age, education and other factors."
6. Admittedly, the claimant was working as a Security Guard and was
earning Rs.13,500/- per month, as pleaded by the claimant. The
learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the claimant as
Rs.10,887/-. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was getting a fixed
salary every month. Therefore, the learned Tribunal assessed the
future prospects by adding additional sum of 50% and I do not find any
good ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned
Tribunal.
7. With regard to functional disability, since the claimant sustained a
fracture of his right hand and his wrist got paralyzed, therefore, the
learned Tribunal rightly assessed the functional disability upto exent of
50%.
8. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Kumar
(supra), the percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole
body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the same as the percentage of
loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent
disability, and the learned Tribunal may determine the same based on
the evidence on record.
9. In the present case, the learned Tribunal, after appreciating the
evidence, came to a conclusion that the functional disability was 50%.
Such a finding is a finding of fact and does not require interference by
this Court. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Nimmi
