Chattisgarh High Court
Pannalal Sinha vs Motilal Bharti on 16 July, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
2025:CGHC:33328
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SYED MAC No. 98 of 2021
ROSHAN
ZAMIR ALI 1. Pannalal Sinha S/o Ramcharan Sinha Aged About 26 Years
Digitally signed
by SYED R/o Village Paragaon, PS- Arang, District Raipur (CG)
ROSHAN
ZAMIR ALI ... Appellant-claimant
versus
1. Motilal Bharti S/o Dulardas Bharti Aged About 50 Years R/o
Village Meiwa, Police Station Nandgaon, District Bemetara
Chhattisgarh ........(Driver Of Offending Vehicle Bus Bearing
Registration No. CG23 -E-0168)
2. Hemant Kumar Miri S/o Shri Latelu Ram Miri Aged About 45
Years R/o Village Baikoni, Police Station Simga, District
Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh........(Owner Of Offending Vehicle
Bus Bearing Registration No. CG23 -E-0168)
3. The New India Insurance Company Limited Through
Divisional Manager, Through Divisional Manager, Near
Bajrang Hotel, In Front Of Tahsil Office, G. E. Road, Raipur
Chhattisgarh ........(Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Bus Bearing
Registration No. Cg23 -E-0168)
... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. SP Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate
2
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order on Board
16/7/2025
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 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the Court of learned 1 st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') vide award dated 3.2.2020 in Claim Case No.656/2018.
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.30,24,000/-under various heads on account of permanent disability suffered by him in a road accident caused by offending vehicle i.e. Bus bearing registration number CG23-E-0168, 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 26 years old boy, due to injuries sustained by him he suffered permanent disability and his lower limbs have become functionless.
3. Non-applicant No.1 and 2 filed joint reply to application, denied the occurrence of accident due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1, rather accident occurred due to negligence of injured himself. It was 3 further pleaded that on the date of accident, non-applicant No.1 was possessing valid driving license, offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant 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 including the fact that accident was caused by the offending vehicle. It was also pleaded that 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 the driver of offending vehicle; there was no element of contributory negligence or violation of conditions of insurance policy; assessed the disability at 100% and accordingly, allowed the application in part and awarded total sum of Rs.16,67,635/- as compensation to appellant herein.
6. Learned counsel for claimant/appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of the appellant at Rs.6,000/- per month; not adding anything towards loss of future prospects and even the compensation awarded under other heads is on the lower side. Hence, he prays that the 4 amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal be enhanced suitably.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents supporting the award passed by the Claims Tribunal submitted 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 including impugned award.
9. Perusal of record would show that in claim application and oral statement, claimant stated that at the time of accident, he was working as Ward-boy in RIMS Hospital, Raipur and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Appellant produced relieving cum experience certificate of Ex.P-8 in which it is certified that appellant was working as Dresser in RIMS, Raipur till 19.7.2017. But, in this certificate there is no mention about the amount paid as salary to the appellant. In such a situation, the Court / Tribunals normally refers to the minimum wage rate prescribed for skilled / unskilled / semi-skilled workers by the Competent Authority for the concerned area and period. However, since the appellant himself has pleaded income as Rs.6,000/- per month, which is less than minimum wage rate prescribed by the competent authority for the period from 1.10.2017 to 31.3.2018 for an unskilled 5 labourer of 'A' Zone area, therefore, fixation of income of the appellant as Rs.6,000/- by the Claims Tribunal does not call for any interference and it is maintained.
10. 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-7) that the appellant has suffered permanent disability in both his lower limbs to the extent of 95%. 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. 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 6 cases - and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim's death."
11. 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, he is entitled for addition of 40% of his income towards future prospects. It is ordered accordingly.
12. 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.6,000/-, as assessed by the Claims Tribunal, and after adding 40% of the assessed income towards future prospects, total income of appellant comes to Rs.8,400/- and annual income comes to Rs.1,08,000/- (8400x12). By applying multiplier of 18, total amount of compensation would come to Rs.18,14,400/-. As the claimant has suffered 100% functional disability, as determined by the Claims Tribunal, the 7 loss of future earning suffered by applicant would come to Rs.18,14,400/-. It is ordered accordingly.
13. The Claims Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering. When compensation is to be awarded under the head of 'pain and suffering', the special circumstances of injured claimant have to be taken into consideration like his age, effect of disability on his future life etc. Recently, in case of K.S. Muralidhar vs. R. Subbulakshmi and others, reported in MANU/SC/1238/2024, where the appellant suffered 90% permanent disability and prayed for enhancement of compensation by a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, Hon'ble Supreme Court referring to its earlier decision on the aspect of 'pain and suffering', has awarded a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- under the head 'pain and suffering'.
14. In case at hand, looking to the age of appellant, the fact that he suffered 95% permanent disability in his both lower limbs due to which he has to suffer agony for his whole life and further considering that disability is non-progressive, not likely to improve and reassessment of disability is not recommended, 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 Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain 8 and sufferings.
15. The Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for loss of enjoyment and amenities in life. Permanent disability in both lower limbs of appellant will definitely hamper his day- to-day activities and enjoyment in every walk of life and he has to face difficulty throughout his life. Hence, I deem it appropriate to award an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life. It is ordered accordingly.
16. The Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards attendant. Normally, the compensation towards attendant is awarded only for the purpose of taking care of the injured till he is able to look after himself. However, in exceptional cases where the injured is immobile and in case like amputation, paralysis etc., there is total inability on the part of the injured to take care of himself or herself without aid SYED SYED ROSHAN ROSHAN of attendant's service for an undefined period, the court has ZAMIR ZAMIRALI ALI Digitally Digitally signed signed by by SYED SYED ROSHAN to take into consideration the necessity for award of just and ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI ZAMIR ALI reasonable compensation by adopting the multiplier method. In case of Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand and others, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413, where a 12 year's suffered injuries resulting into brain damage, Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded the compensation towards attendant by applying multiplier method. Relevant paragraphs of the said decision 9 are reproduced herein below:-
"Attendant charges
22. The attendant charges have been awarded by the High Court @ Rs.2,500/ per month for 44 years, which works out to Rs.13,20,000/. Unfortunately, this system is not a proper system. Multiplier system is used to balance out various factors. When compensation is awarded in lump sum, various factors are taken into consideration. When compensation is paid in lump sum, this Court has always followed the multiplier system. The multiplier system should be followed not only for determining the compensation on account of loss of income but also for determining the attendant charges etc. This system was recognised by this Court in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. vs. R.M.K. Veluswami. The multiplier system factors in the inflation rate, the rate of interest payable on the lump sum award, the longevity of the claimant, and also other issues such as the uncertainties of life. Out of all the various alternative methods, the multiplier method has been recognised as the most realistic and reasonable method. It ensures better justice between the parties and thus results in award of 'just compensation' within the meaning of the Act."
17. In case of Abhimanyu Pratap Singh vs. Namita Sekhon, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 489 the injured claimant due to injuries in lower limbs, lost the senses for calls of nature and needs all time attendants for his daily routine work; he cannot 10 move without wheel chair or motorized vehicle. In such a situation, Hon'ble Supreme Court taking guidance from the decision in case of Kajal's case (supra) has determined the compensation for attendant applying the multiplier method.
18. In case at hand, as per disability certificate (Ex.P-7), appellant has suffered 95% permanent disability in relation to both his lower limbs. Appellant is the case of post traumatic residual, total paraplegia due to fracture of D5, D6. His condition is non-progressive and not likely to improve. Reassessment of disability is not recommended. Dr. P.K. Gupta (AW-2), who had issued disability certificate Ex.P-7, has deposed in his evidence that due to injury sustained by appellant in his spinal chord, both his lower limbs were paralyzed completely and there was stiffness in all joints. Meaning thereby, there is loss of sensation in both lower limbs of appellant, no movement on both lower limbs, he cannot sit without support, no control on bowel and bladder and is totally dependent on others for all routine activity because of paraplegia. The medical evidence on record would necessarily show that appellant would require atleast an attendant throughout his life for his day to day needs. Thus, as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kajal (supra), appellant must be provided with attendant charges for entire life, by adopting multiplier method. Therefore, I find it appropriate to determine a sum of 11 Rs.3,000/- per month towards attendant charges. Considering the age of appellant to be 26 years, the same multiplier is adopted to calculate the compensation towards attendant charges. Accordingly, the compensation for attendant charges works out to Rs.6,48,000/- (3000x12x18)
19. Compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal for conveyance is also enhanced to Rs.20,000/-.
20. In view of above, claimant/appellant is now entitled for compensation as under;-
HEADS : AMOUNT (In Rs.)
Loss of income. : 18,14,400=00
Medical Expenses : 3,21,635=00
For pain and sufferings : 2,00,000=00
For loss of amenities : 1,00,000=00
For Special Diet : 20,000=00
For conveyance : 20,000=00
For Attendant : 6,48,000=00
Total: 31,24,035=00
21. Now, claimant/appellant is held entitled for a total
compensation of Rs.31,24,035/- in place of Rs.16,67,635/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. This 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.
12
22.In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-