Partly allowed

Dinesh Kumar v. Sidhayak Sahu

Chhattisgarh HC9 Jun 2025MAC/117/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal for enhancement of motor accident compensation where claimant lost his left eye and suffered permanent disability. The court raised notional income to minimum wages of Rs.7,800 per month, added 40% future prospects applying multiplier 16 with 40% loss of earning capacity, enhanced pain and suffering, attendant charges and loss of amenities, and allowed the appeal in part.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.9,38,656 with interest at 7.5% from date of filing of claim application till realization; impugned award modified to that extent.

Dinesh Kumar Vs Sidhayak Sahu — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

2025:CGHC:22824

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 117 of 2020

¶6

1 - Dinesh Kumar S/o Jantram Aged About 33 Years Permanent R/o Village Tivarata, Post Tivarata Thana Dipka, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. Presently R/o Khalari Para Raipura Thana D.D. Nagar, Post Raipura, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisarh. (Claimant), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

1 - Sidhayak Sahu S/o Jagannath Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Khairkhundi Thana Ratanpur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Track No. C.G. 10/a.K./8492). (Driver), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Pradeepchand Jha S/o Ramnath Jha R/o Dipupara, Ward No. 15 Tarbahar Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Track No. C.G. 10/a.K./8492). (Owner), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - The New India Assurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No. 3, R.D.A. Belding, Bajrang Market G.E. Road Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Track No. C.G. 10/a.K./8492). (Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

For Appellant For Respondents

¶14

: Mr. A.L. Singhroul, Advocate

¶15

: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate

¶16

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board

¶17

10/06/2025

¶18

This appeal is filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 06.11.2019 passed by the 2^nd Additional Motor Accident

¶19

SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY

¶20

¶21

Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 348/2019.

¶22

Facts of the case in brief are that, on 17.08.2018, when the appellant along with his friend namely, Bharat Singh on his motorcycle bearing registration no. CG 12 AR 6449 was going towards Batari, at that time around 08:30 P.M., when they reached near Kosabadi, the offending vehicle i.e. Truck bearing registration no. CG 10 AK 8492 driven by the Respondent No. 1 stopped the vehicle suddenly on the middle of the road due to which, the appellant met with an accident with the offending vehicle. In the said accident, appellant and his friend suffered serious injuries, they were taken to Hospital for treatment. Subsequent to the accident, a crime was registered against the Respondent No. 1 bearing Crime No. 173/2018 at P.S. Deepka, District – Korba for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶23

Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding a meagre sum as compensation, overlooking the fact that the appellant suffered loss of left eye in the accident resulting in permanent disability. However, the learned Claims Tribunal assessing permanent disability to the extent of 50% has assessed loss of earning capacity as 40% only. He also contended that the income assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal is on lower side. The amount of compensation awarded on other heads is also on lower side and the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is fastened upon the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company. Hence, the amount of compensation may be suitably enhanced.

¶24

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 do not dispute the submission made by the counsel for appellant that, the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is on the Respondent

¶25

¶26

No. 3/Insurance company. He further submits that the amount of compensation awarded in the facts of the case is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the claim case.

¶28

So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant with respect to the assessment of the income of the appellant is concerned, the date of accident is 07.08.2018. In the pleadings, it is mentioned that the appellant was working as Mason and earning Rs. 400/- per day. However, the said pleading could not be proved by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence. In the aforementioned facts of the case, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly decided to assess the income of the appellant on notional basis. For assessing the income, in cases, where the claimant/appellants failed to prove the nature of occupation and the income from the said occupation by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal is required to consider the age of the claimant/deceased, the price index and may also take the help of the minimum wages as fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the purpose of computing the amount of compensation.

¶29

In the case at hand, learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant/claimant as Rs. 6,000/- per month without assigning any reason for the same. In the facts of the case, where there is no proof of income of the claimant, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken note of the minimum wages as fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. According to the Minimum Wages prevailing in the State, the minimum

¶30

¶31

wages fixed for Unskilled Labourer is Rs. 7,800/- per month for Zone ‘C’ cities. The place of residence of the appellant/claimant falls within the ‘C’ Zone and for which, the minimum wages fixed for Unskilled Labourer is Rs. 7,800/- per month, hence, I find it appropriate to assess income of the appellant as Rs. 7,800/- per month. It is ordered accordingly.

¶32

The learned Claims Tribunal taking the schedule under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 has assessed the loss of earning capacity for loss of one eye as 40% which cannot be said to be erroneous and the said finding is accordingly, affirmed .

¶33

In the facts of the case and discussions made in preceding paragraphs, I find appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation.

¶34

Though, the learned Claims Tribunal has concluded that the appellant suffered 40% disability, however, no amount is added to the income of the deceased towards the loss of future prospect. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandramani Nanda Vs. Sarat Chandra Swain & Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2859 while considering the award of compensation towards the future prospects in the case of permanent disability has held that the claimant who suffers permanent disability is also entitled for the loss of future prospects and held thus:-

¶35

“ 14.3 However, the Tribunal and the High Court both have failed to consider the fact that the appellant is also entitled for enhancement on account of future prospects. Hence, in line with the law laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi10, given the age of appellant was 32 years at the time of accident, he is entitled to 40% future prospects.“

¶36

¶37

In view of the aforementioned decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that where the injured/claimant suffered permanent disability, there should be addition of loss of future prospects based on the age of the deceased as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 .

¶38

In the case at hand, the age of the deceased is 32 years and therefore, there shall enhancement of 40% of the assessed income towards the loss of future prospects. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 10920/- (7800 + 3120) and the yearly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 1,31,040/- (10920 X 12). The appellant is aged about 32 years and therefore, the multiplier of 16 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. 20,96,640/- (1,31,040 X 16). As this Court has assessed the loss of earning of the appellant to the extent of 40% and therefore, the 40% of the loss of income would come to Rs. 8,38,656/- (40% of 20,96,640) .

¶39

Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the amount of compensation awarded under the other heads is on lower side. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 20,000/- towards the pains and sufferings, which in the opinion of this Court, in view of the nature of injuries suffered is on the lower side and accordingly, the compensation awarded towards pains and sufferings is enhanced from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-. The amount of compensation awarded under the head of conveyance expenses and special diet is

¶40

¶41

appropriately awarded which does not call for any interference. Further, in the facts of the case and looking to the nature of injuries, I find it appropriate to award Rs. 10,000/- towards attendant and Rs. 30,000/towards loss of amenities in life. It is ordered accordingly.

¶42

13.Now, the appellant/claimant will be entitled for the total amount of compensation which is as under:-

¶43

Rs. 9,38,656/- (8,38,656 + 30,000 + 10,000 + 20,000 + 30,000 + 10,000)

¶44

This 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.

¶45

Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellant as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above.

¶46

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above.

¶47

Certified copy as per rules.

¶48

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶49

Dey

Dinesh Kumar v. Sidhayak Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar v. Sidhayak Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Kaoushaliya Devi Vs Shri Madhusudan Singh

Smt. Gyanwati Chouhan Vs Ishatdev Kushwaha

Smt. Vandana Mishra Vs Ishatdev Kushwaha

Smt. Tameshwari Kashyap Vs Vinod Kumar Banjare

Aman Kashyap @ Sanju Vs Vinod Kumar Banjare

Smt. Tameshwari Kashyap Vs Vinod Kumar Banjare