Chattisgarh High Court
Jeevan Lal Verma vs Vijay Singh Thakur on 4 July, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:30565
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 377 of 2019
1 - Jeevan Lal Verma S/o Jhadiram Verma Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Mandh,
Police Station Kharora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
Versus
1 - Vijay Singh Thakur S/o Baldau Singh Thakur Aged About 44 Years R/o Village
Tilda, Police Station Kashdol District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh.
2 - Ashwani Kumar Dadsena S/o D R Dadsena R/o Purani Basti, Police Station
Balodabazar, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh.
3 - The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager (Zonal No.2),
Behind Divisional Life Insurance Office Pandari Raipur Police Station Mova, Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order On Board
04/07/2025
1. Heard on I.A. No. 02/2019 which is an application for withdrawal of the Vakalatnama.
2. Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel submits that earlier he was engaged as counsel by the Respondent No. 3 and pursuant thereto, he has also filed Vakalatnama. Now, the Respondent No. 3 has engaged SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 another counsel and hence, he may be permitted to withdraw Vakalatnama.
3. Mr. Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 submits that the application seeking withdrawal of the power has been considered and allowed by this Court vide order dated 05.04.2019.
4. In view of the aforementioned facts of the case, no further order is required for withdrawal of Vakalatnama.
5. This appeal is filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 23.01.2018 passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 809/2015.
6. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 15.07.2015 at about 08:45 P.M., when Applicant was travelling in the offending vehicle i.e. Bus bearing registration no. CG 04 E 0776 and reached near Village Bangoli, the offending vehicle met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the Respondent No. 1. In the said accident, the applicant suffered serious injuries, was taken to hospital for treatment. Subsequent to the said accident, an FIR was registered bearing Crime No. 191/2015, P.S. Kharora, District - Raipur for the offence punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
7. The applicant/claimant has pleaded in his claim application that on the date of accident, the applicant was aged about 50 years, he was the only bread-winner of his family. He was doing agricultural work and also running grocery business, was earning Rs. 3,21,000/- per annum. In the motor accident, claimant suffered multiple severe injuries 3 resulting in permanent disability, claimed Rs. 43,25,000/- as compensation.
8. The Non-Applicant No. 1 & 2 submitted their reply to the claim application pleading that the Non-applicant No. 1 is Driver and the Non- Applicant No. 2 is owner of the offending vehicle. On the date of accident, the Non-applicant No. 1 was possessing valid and effective driving license and the Non-applicant No. 2 was also having the valid permit and fitness of the vehicle. On the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the Non-Applicant No. 3 and therefore, liability if any, will be of Non-Applicant No. 3.
9. The Non-Applicant No. 3/Respondent No. 3 in its reply pleaded that on the date of accident, Non-Applicant No. 1 was not possessing valid and effective driving license. Further, the Non-Applicant No. 3 pleaded that, on the date of accident, Non-Applicant No. 2 was not having the valid and effective permit or fitness certificate to ply the offending vehicle and therefore, the Non-Applicant No. 3 is not liable to satisfy the amount of compensation.
10. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the facts and evidence brought on record allowed the application in part and fastened the liability upon the Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company to satisfy the amount of compensation and awarded a sum of Rs. 4,79,200/- as compensation to the appellant/claimant.
11. Learned counsel for appellant/claimant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre amount of compensation disbelieving the contents fo the Disability Certificate and the evidence of Dr. G.S. Bacchu (AW-3) on extraneous consideration. He contended that the appellant suffered fracture injury and at two places on Spine due to which, his both 4 lower limbs became non-functional or suffered with paraplegia. The appellant could not be able to move/walk on his own. The Tribunal though have accepted that the appellant could not be able to perform the work by both of his legs, however, assessed disability with respect to the lower body as 30% only, no reason has been assigned for arriving at such a conclusion. He next contended that the learned Claims Tribunal disbelieved the income as mentioned in the income tax return acknowledgment and have assessed the income of the applicant/claimant as Rs. 7,000/- per month. He further contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has not added any amount of compensation towards the loss of future prospects and have awarded meagre amount of compensation under other heads.
12. On the other hand, l earned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 vehemently opposes the submission made by the counsel for the appellant and would submit that the disability certificate submitted by the appellant/claimant is not of the Medical Board or the treating doctor, but of the single doctor. Dr. G.S. Bacchu. He is examined as AW-3 and in his evidence, he has stated that he has not mentioned the book which he referred for arriving at a conclusion that the appellant suffered 100% loss of earning capacity. He also pointed out that the disbelieving of the income tax return by the learned Claims Tribunal is because, just before few days of filing of the claim application, the appellant have submitted his income tax return. The income tax return was submitted after the accident and before filing of the claim application. No document has been filed/income tax return either prior to the income tax return for the assessment of the year 2015-16 and income tax return of the subsequent year. He further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal have assigned the reasons for disbelieving the income tax return as well as the permanent disability to the extent of 100%. in the facts of the case, the amount of compensation awarded is just and proper and does not call for any interfere.
5
13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the claim case.
14. The first ground raised by the counsel for the appellant with regard to the non-consideration of Disability Certificate in appropriate manner and assessed the loss of earning to the tune of 30% only is concerned, the appellant suffered motor accidental injuries on his backbone. As per the evidence of Dr. G.S. Bacchu (AW-3), the appellant suffered two fracture over the spine. It is the case of the claimant that due to the aforementioned injury, he could not able to walk of his own. True, it is that the Disability Certificate is not one of the treating doctor or of the Medical Board. However, considering the photograph of the appellant/claimant and the nature of injury and the part of the body on which, the appellant/claimant suffered injury, it is apparent that he suffered injury at the joining of the spinal bone over his waist resulting in disability. The suffering of the appellant as Paraplegia cannot be ruled out. It is appearing that the learned Claims Tribunal upon considering the physical condition of the claimant has concluded in para 20 that the claimant is unable to work by his both legs meaning thereby, his both legs are non-functional which Tribunal might have noted when the claimant appeared before it. However, the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the disability for the whole body as 30%.
15. For the purpose awarding compensation granted under the head of loss of earning capacity/loss of income, in all the cases, it will not be necessary that the nature of disability on any part of the body would not have the loss of earning capacity in the same proportionate or more. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar and another reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 has considered that what will be the 6 percentage of loss of earning capacity in view of the permanent disability suffered by any person considering the part of the body affected as also, the nature of occupation and held thus:
"5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act", for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. [See C.K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair [(1969) 3 SCC 64 : AIR 1970 SC 376] , R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. [(1995) 1 SCC 551 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 250] and Baker v. Willoughby [1970 AC 467 : (1970) 2 WLR 50 :
(1969) 3 All ER 1528 (HL)] .].
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages) 7
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads ( i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and
(vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
7. Assessment of pecuniary damages under Item
(i) and under Item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses
--Item (iii)--depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and 8 cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages--Items (iv), (v) and (vi)--involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decisions of this Court and the High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability--Item (ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case."
Admittedly, from the documents available in the claim case as also, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal, it is apparent that both the lower limbs of the applicant/claimant became non-functional meaning thereby, he would not be able to walk of his own. The self- employment of the applicant/claimant by doing the business and the income there from as reflecting from the income tax return (Ex. P/162) is disbelieved by the learned Claims Tribunal on the ground that the income tax return was submitted after the date of accident and just before filing of the claim application.
16. In the facts of the case and the evidence available on record, the said finding cannot be treated to be erroneous, but it is on appreciation of facts and evidence available on record, the appellant/claimant who is 50 years of age, cannot be expected to live without work or earnings and therefore, even if in absence of any evidence of the nature of occupation, he is considered to be an Unskilled Labourer. If he is to be 9 treated as an Unskilled Labourer, then he may not be able to perform any Labourer work with the disability as mentioned above in the disability certificate. Because of the nature of injuries, both of his legs became non-functional.
17. Loss of earning vis-a-vis, the same disability may differ from person to person looking to the nature of work which they were doing prior to accident.
18. The learned Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed the loss of income considering all the facts as discussed above. It appears that the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the loss of earning/income in a mechanical manner which is not sustainable. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that for computation of the amount of compensation, assessment of loss of earning capacity/functional disability would be only 30% is perverse to the evidence available on record. In the above facts of the case, in particular, looking to the injuries suffered as is reflecting with regard to the non-functional of both the lower limbs of the claimant, I find it appropriate to assess the loss of earning capacity of the claimant/applicant to 70% instead of 30%. It is ordered accordingly.
19. With regard to the income of the deceased, the learned Claims Tribunal though considered the documents i.e. Income Tax Return Ex. P/162, but disbelieved the same on the ground that it was filed after the accident and before filing of the claim application cannot be said to be erroneous and therefore, the income assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal for the accident which occurred on 15.07.2015 of Rs. 7,000/- per month for the discussions in the preceding paragraphs cannot be said to be erroneous and it is hereby, affirmed.
10
20. The learned Claims Tribunal fell into error in not awarding any amount of compensation under the head of loss of future prospects as the deceased was 50 years of age. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sidram Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr. reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439 has held that in the permanent disablement case also, the claimants will be entitled for compensation under the head of loss of future prospects.
21. As the claimant was 50 years of age and therefore, there shall be addition of 25% of the established income towards the loss of future prospects as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. The claimants will be further entitled for Rs. 1,26,600/- as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal towards the medical expenses. The amount of compensation awarded towards the pains and sufferings in the facts of the case is also on lower side. The claimant being 50 years of age in fact has become disabled by both of his lower limbs due to the motor accidental injuries. He has to live his life with difficulties for his movement and discharge of his daily routine works and therefore, I find it appropriate to award Rs. 50,000/- towards the pains and sufferings instead of Rs. 25,000/- as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly.
22. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation towards the attendant. Looking to the injuries as is reflecting from the photograph affixed in the Disability Certificate prepared on November, 2016 whereas, the date of accident is 15.07.2015 and considering the period of treatment from 08.08.2015 to 24.09.2015 as per the evidence available, the appellant took treatment 11 at Mittal Hospital, Mekahara Hospital and Gayatri Hospital, I find it appropriate to hold that the appellant might have taken treatment for about 02 months and he might have required help of attendant for further period of 03 months and therefore, I find it appropriate to award compensation under the head of attendant as Rs. 25,000/- (5000 X 5). The appellant could not be able to do the work during period of treatment and therefore, I find it appropriate to award loss of income for a period 06 months which comes to Rs. 42,000/- (6,000 X 7), Rs. 40,000 towards the loss of amenities in life.
23. In the facts of the case and discussions as observed, I find appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation.
24. In the case at hand, the age of the deceased is 50 years and therefore, there shall enhancement of 25% of the assessed income towards the loss of future prospects. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 8750/- (7000 + 1750) and the yearly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 1,05,000/- (8750 X 12). The appellant is aged about 50 years and therefore, the multiplier of 13 as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 would be applicable, which makes the total income of the deceased as Rs. 13,65,000/- (1,05,000 X 13). As this Court has assessed the loss of earning of the appellant to the extent of 70% and therefore, the 70% of the loss of income would come to Rs. 9,55,500/- (70% of 13,65,000).
25. Now, the appellant/claimant will be entitled for the total amount of compensation which is as under:-
12
• Rs. 12,39,100/- [955500.4 (loss of income) + 1,26,600 (medical expenses) + 50,000 (pains and sufferings) + 25,000 (attendant) + 42,000 (loss of income during laid down period) + 40,000 (loss of amenities in life).
26. This enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact.
27. At this stage, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3/insurance company submits that there is delay of 294 days in filing of the appeal and therefore, the appellant is not entitled for the interest of delay period.
28. Considering the submission of the counsel for the Respondent No. 3 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakkamma Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2021) 20 SCC 797, it is directed that the appellant will not be entitled for the interest on the additional amount of compensation for the delayed period, which is 294 days.
29. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellant as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above.
30. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above.
31. Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-d/--/-/--------/--/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey