Chattisgarh High Court
Ku. Shruti Sharma vs Shashikant Sahu on 20 March, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
2025:CGHC:13246
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 217 of 2020
1 - Ku. Shruti Sharma D/o Akeshwar Sharma Aged About 18 Years R/o
Village Bhanpuri, Post Office Chandrakhuri Police Station Anda, District
Durg, Chhattisgarh.
--- Petitioner
versus
1 - Shashikant Sahu S/o Shri Laluram Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o
Quarter No. 6-A, Street No. N.P.A. Sector-9, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg,
Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Offending Hyundai Vehicle Bearing Registration
C.G.07 B.B. 2733)
2 - Smt. Mamta Shashi Sahu W/o Shri Shashikant Sahu Aged About 34
Years R/o Quarter No. 6-A, Street No. N.P.A. Sector-9, Bhilai, Tahsil And
District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Hyundai Vehicle Bearing
Registration C.G.07 B.B. 2733)
3 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch
Manager Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, First Floor, Shiv
Mohan Bhawan, Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of
Offending Hyundai Vehicle Bearing Registration C.G.07 B.B. 2733).
--- Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 20/03/2025
1. Claimant/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') seeking Digitally enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Second signed by BALRAM BALRAM PRASAD PRASAD DEWANGAN DEWANGAN Date:
2025.03.25 11:37:03 +0530 2 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District - Durg (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') vide award dated 27.08.2019 passed in Claim Case No.H-318/2017 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.1,98,060/- as compensation in an injury case.
2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 13.11.2016 at about 7.30 PM, when appellant was coming with his brother Khomendra Sharma on a the motor cycle from Ramnagar, Supela to her village Bhanpuri and while crossing Ruwabandha Panthi Square, the driver of the car bearing registration No.C.G.-07-BB 2733 dashed the motor cycle, due to which she suffered grievous injuries on her right leg and her right leg was fractured operated and rod was inserted. She also suffered injuries over her ear and other parts of body. The appellant was immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Durg from where she took treatment till 18.11.2016 and thereafter she was taken to Suraaj Hospital, Neharu Nagar, Bhilai and took treatment as inpatient from 18.11.2016 to 06.12.2016.
3. Appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.4,76,000/- pleading therein that at the time of accident, she used to study and do sewing and embroidery work and earned Rs.6,000/- per month. The appellant was bright student and due to the accident, he could not appear in the examination of Class - 11th . Due to the said accident, appellant suffered permanent disablement and unable to perform his sewing and embroidery work. Claimant had also sought compensation under all other heads as are available to her like medical expenses, special diet, future medical expenses, pain and sufferings etc. 3
4. Non-applicant Nos.1 & 2/driver and owner of offending vehicle, submitted reply and resisted the claim. It was pleaded that the accident was the result of head on collision and at that time, respondent No.1 was having valid and effective driving licence to drove the vehicle. The vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.3 and there was no breach of policy condition. Amount of compensation as claimed by appellant is highly exaggerated. It was pleaded that in case, claimants are entitled for compensation, then respondent No.3 shall be liable to pay the compensation.
5. Non-applicant No.3-Insurer of offending vehicle, submitted reply to claim application, while denying the pleadings made therein, has further pleaded that on the date of accident, there was no accident from vehicle bearing No.C.G.-07 BB 2733. In order to get compensation, the appellant has involved the said vehicle in the accident on the false ground in collusion with the owner and driver of the said vehicle. At the time of accident, the appellant was driving the motor cycle rashly and negligently without having any valid licence, there was breach of condition of insurance policy, hence, insurance company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation.
6. Upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, learned Claims Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1, due to which the appellant suffered injuries. Breach of Policy condition was not found to be proved. Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.1,98,060/- along with interest 4 @ 7% per annum, fastened liability upon non-applicant No.3- Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation.
7. Learned counsel for appellant submits that Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation. It is submitted that learned Claims Tribunal failed to consider the evidence brought on record regarding income of appellant and erroneously assess the income of the appellant as Rs.3000/- per month on notional basis. It is submitted that due to the accident, the right leg of the appellant got fractured and her right leg was operated thrice and she sustained 10% permanent disablement, however, the learned Claims Tribunal failed to consider this fact, not awarding proper and suitable compensation towards pains and suffering and mental agony in favour of the appellant. He prays that amount of compensation be suitably enhanced.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation on each and every head. It is submitted that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is on proper appreciation of facts and evidence brought on record by the respective parties, which does not call for any interference.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. Perusal of the record would show that on the date of incident, appellant was 17 years of age, who suffered grievous injuries on her right leg in the road accident. Her right leg was operated thrice and rod was inserted. It has come in evidence of the appellant that at the time 5 of accident, she was studying and do sewing and embroidery work and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. She was bright student and due to the accident, she could not appear in the examination of Class - 11th and also she was unable to do sewing and embroidery work. Perusal of the medical certificate would show that appellant suffered 10% of permanent disability.
11. The learned Claims Tribunal has not considered the nature of work and income as pleaded and stated by the appellants and assessed the notional income at Rs. 3,000/- per month, holding that the appellant, being 17 years old, has not provided sufficient evidence to prove that she was earning any income. The assessment made by learned Claims Tribunal overlooks the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, which mentions the wage for different types of workers.
12. In the case at hand, the incident is of the year 2016, at that relevant point of time, even the unskilled workers usually earned more than Rs.3,000/- per month as per minimum wages fixed in State of Chhattisgarh by competent authority under Minimum Wages Act. As the appellant was 17 years old at the time of accident and she has specifically pleaded and stated in her evidence that she was doing sewing and embroidery work, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the income of the appellant can be taken as Rs.7,000/- per month for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation.
13. Perusal of the impugned award would show that any amount towards future prospects has not been added by the Claims Tribunal. Since at the time of incident, the injured was 17 years of age, therefore, as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance 6 Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the income is required to be enhanced by 40% towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.2800/- and thus the total monthly income of the injured comes to Rs.9,800/-.
14. There is no dispute with respect to disability of the appellant and multiplier applied by the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- towards pains and suffering, which looking to the facts and circumstances of the case is required to be enhanced from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/-. It is ordered accordingly.
15. Accordingly, the income of the injured is taken Rs.9800/= (Rs.7,000/- + 2800/-) and annual income of the injured comes to Rs.1,17,600/-. After applying multiplier of 18, the total income of the injured comes to Rs.21,16,800/-. As the disability suffered by the appellant is fixed as 10%, the compensation has to be calculated by apportioning to 10% disability and accordingly total compensation under the head of loss earning capacity works out to Rs.2,11,680/-. Thus amount under the head of loss of income is enhanced from Rs.54,000/- to Rs.2,11,680/-. Likewise, the appellant shall be entitled for a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering instead of Rs.20,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
16. On the basis of above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :-
S.N. Head Amount.
1. Loss of income : Rs. 2,11,680.00
2. For medical expenses : Rs. 79,260.00 (maintained)
7
3. For Transportation : Rs. 19,600.00 (maintained)
4. For attendant : Rs. 7,200.00 (maintained)
5. For special diet : Rs. 18,000.00 (maintained)
6. For pain and suffering : Rs. 30,000.00 (enhanced)
Total Compensation : Rs. 3,65,740.00
17. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,65,740.00. Any amount paid to the appellant as compensation as per award shall be adjusted. Amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization.
18. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram