Chattisgarh High Court
Miss Anita Mitra vs Lalit Mohan Singh Dev on 21 July, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
SYED
ROSHAN
ZAMIR ALI
Digitally signed
2025:CGHC:34538
by SYED
ROSHAN NAFR
ZAMIR ALI
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 643 of 2019
1. Miss Anita Mitra D/o Shri Dilip Mitra Aged About 25 Years R/o
Village Tetarkhuti Aghanpur, Jagdalpur District Bastar (CG)
...Appellant-claimant
versus
1. Lalit Mohan Singh Dev S/o Ganesh Prasad Dev Aged About
35 Years R/o Village Shitlawand Chowki Bakawand District
Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Vehicle)
2. M/s T.N. Construction Co. Ltd. Kailash Nagar Dantewada
District South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh (Owner of the
vehicle)/
3. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch
Manager Office At Shop No. 205 Silver Bhawan Opposite
Udyog Bhawan Ring Road No. 1 Mahavir Nagar Raipur
District Raiupr Chhattisgarh. (Insurer)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. Vikas Patel Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Shrejal Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Astha Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 21/7/2025
1. Appellant-claimant, who suffered permanent disability in a road accident, has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Court of learned 2nd Additional 2 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') vide award dated 16.11.2018 in Claim Case No.10/2018.
2. Claimant-appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act of 1988') seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.10,85,000/-under various heads on account of permanent disability suffered by her in a road accident caused on 9.8.2017 by offending vehicle i.e. Bolero Jeep bearing registration mark CG18-D- 0696, driven in a rash and negligent manner by non-applicant No.1/ respondent No.1 herein. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, claimant was 25 years old girl, she working as Data Entry Operator, getting salary of Rs.9,000/- per month, due to injuries sustained by her, she suffered permanent disability in her left leg to the extent of 43% and now she is unable to efficiently do the work which she was doing prior to accident.
3. Non-applicant No.1 filed reply to application pleading that accident occurred due to fault and negligence of claimant herself. Claimant dashed her Scooty against the stationed offending vehicle. There was no negligence on the part of non-applicant No.1. It was further pleaded that on the date of accident, non-applicant No.1 was possessing valid driving license, offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant 3 No.3 and therefore, non-applicant No.3 is liable to pay compensation if any awarded.
4. Non-applicant No.3 also filed its reply denying the averments made therein. It was pleaded that FIR of the accident was lodged with delay. At the time of accident, driver of offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving license and even there was no permit and fitness certificate in favour of offending vehicle, therefore, insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured.
5. The Claims Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence adduced by respective parties, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by non-applicant No.1- driver of offending vehicle; there was no breach of any of conditions of insurance policy and accordingly, allowed the application in part and awarded total sum of Rs.2,66,300/- as compensation to claimant /appellant.
6. Learned counsel for claimant/appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of appellant/injured at Rs.4,500/- per month; whereas it ought to have assessed the income on the basis of minimum wage rate prevailing in the year 2017 when accident took place. He further submits that due to accident, appellant suffered permanent disability, in this regard disability certificate (Ex. A-39) has been filed, which is proved by statement of Dr. Lakhan Thakur (AW-2), 4 who has stated that the appellant suffered 43% permanent disability. However, the Tribunal wrongly assessed permanent disability at 14.33%. He next contended that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal under other heads is also on lower side and deserves to be enhanced suitably.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents supporting the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, would submit that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper, it does not call for any interference.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused record of claim case.
9. As regards the extent of disability, the claimant has submitted disability certificate (Ex.A-39) issued by the District Medical Board, Maharani Hospital Jagdalpur in which it is mentioned that appellant suffered locomotive disability in her left lower limb to the extent of 43%, it is non-progressive, not likely to improve and reassessment of disability is not recommended. Dr. Lakhan Thakur (AW-2), who was one of the members of District Medical Board which has issued disability certificate in favour of appellant, has deposed that after examination of appellant, Board found that claimant suffered 43% disability in her left leg, which was permanent in nature. This witness 5 admitted that disability of appellant in comparison to her whole body, would be 14.33%. Thus, considering the disability certificate and evidence of the doctor, the Claims Tribunal has considered functional disability of appellant as 14.33%, which does not call for any interference and it is affirmed.
10. As regards income of appellant-injured, in the claim application she pleaded that, she is working as Data Entry Operator and getting Rs.9,000/- per month and in support therefore, claimant has not produced any admissible piece of evidence to prove her occupation and income therefore. Though claimant has produced a certificate issued on the letter head of Vandana Agencies, an authorized BSNL Franchise, Jagdalpur but she did not examine her employer or any authorized person from the said agency, from which certificate Ex.A-9 was issued to prove the said document. In absence of proof of income of claimant, Claims Tribunal justified in assessing income on notional basis, however, fell into error in not considering the factors like wage rate, price index, inflation rate and minimum wage notified by Competent Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Hence, fixation of monthly income of appellant as Rs.4,500/- by the Claims Tribunal is not sustainable and it is set aside.
11. It is undisputed that claimant-appellant is resident of 6 Jagdalpur, which falls within 'C' Zone area. Accident occurred on 9.8.2017. Appellant can safely be treated as unskilled worker. Minimum wage rate of an unskilled worker of the area falling in category of Zone-C for the period from 1.4.2017 to 30.9.2017 was Rs.7,800/-, as notified by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. So, the income of appellant-claimant is considered to be Rs.7,800/- per month. It is ordered accordingly.
12. Perusal of the award would show that the Claims Tribunal has not added anything to the assessed monthly income of appellant towards future prospects though it is established from the disability certificate (Ex.P-39) that the appellant has suffered permanent disability in her right lower limb to the extent of 43%. In case of Sidram vs. The Divisional Manager, United Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus:-
"31. It is now a well settled position of law that even in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor-accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future prospects as well. We have come across many orders of different tribunals and unfortunately affirmed by different High Courts, taking the view that the claimant is not entitled to compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. That is not a correct position of law.7
There is no justification to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading is illogical because it denies altogether the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in accident cases - and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim's death."
13. In light of the above decision, it is clear that calculation of compensation towards loss of future earning capacity on account of disability is required to be made by adding future prospects in the income of injured claimant. Hence, this Court is of the view that the Claims Tribunal erred in not adding anything towards future prospects while assessing income of appellant for the purpose of computing compensation under the head of loss of future earning capacity. Since appellant was below the age of 40 years i.e. of 26 years, at the time of accident, she is entitled for addition of 40% of her income towards future prospects. It is ordered accordingly.
14. In view of above, the compensation payable to the appellant under the head 'loss of future earning capacity' is to be recomputed. Accordingly, income of appellant is taken as Rs.7,800/-, as assessed by the Claims Tribunal, and after adding 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects, total income of appellant comes to Rs.10,920/- 8 and annual income comes to Rs.1,31,040/-. By applying multiplier of 18, as applied by Claims Tribunal, total amount of compensation would come to Rs.23,58,720/-. As the claimant has suffered 14.33% permanent disability, as determined by the Claims Tribunal, the loss of future earning suffered by appellant would come to Rs.3,38,004.57 paise (14.33% of 23,58,7200), which is rounded off to Rs.3,38,005/-. It is ordered accordingly.
15. Regarding the loss of income during period of treatment is concerned, looking to nature of injury i.e. fracture of lower end of tibia, and period of hospitalization i.e. from 10.8.2017 to 17.8.2017, in the opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal rightly held that appellant may not be in a position to attend her work for a period of one month, and the same is hereby affirmed. However, as this Court has reassessed income of appellant as Rs.7,800/-, therefore, it is ordered that appellant is now entitled for compensation of Rs.7,800/- towards loss of income during period of treatment.
16. Looking to the age of appellant and the fact that she suffered 14% permanent disability in her left leg due to which she has to suffer agony for her whole life, I am of the view that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal towards pains and sufferings is on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Accordingly, it is ordered that appellant is now entitled for 9 Rs.15,000/- towards pain and sufferings.
17. Appellant is resident of village Aghanpur. Jagdalpur; she suffered fracture of lower end of tibia and she took treatment at Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur. Thus, looking to the nature of injury, it is clear that appellant must have required assistance of an attendant during the period of treatment and thereafter to take care of her. However, the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards attendant charges, for which appellant is entitled for. Accordingly, it is ordered that appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges.
18. The compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal towards medical expenses, future treatment and transportation is just and proper and the same is maintained.
19. In view of above, claimant/appellant is now entitled for compensation as under;-
HEADS : AMOUNT (In Rs.)
Loss of future earning capacity : 3,38,005=00
(10920x12x18x14.33/100).
Loss of income : 7,800=00
Medical expenses : 97,539=00
For future treatment. : 5,000=00
For pain and sufferings : 15,000=00
For Special Diet : 5,000=00
For conveyance : 5,000=00
For Attendant : 10,000=00
10
Total: 4,78,344=00
20. Now, claimant/appellant is held entitled for a total
compensation of Rs.4,78,344/- in place of Rs.2,66,327/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of application. Any amount disbursed to appellant pursuant to impugned award will be adjusted from the amount of compensation as awarded above. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.
21. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above.
(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-