Mithlesh Changa Vs Shiv Bagas @ Vikash Sahu

¶1

1

¶2

SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI

¶3

2025:CGHC:34196

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 135 of 2025

¶7

Mitesh Changa (Minor) S/o Mukesh Changa Aged About 15 Years Through Legal Guardian Mukesh Changa S/o Surendra Changa, Aged About 44 Years, R/o House No. A-202, Harshit Jewelers, Bhagat Singh Ward No. 13, Hirapur Road, Tatibandh, Thana Amanaka, Distt. Raipur (CG)(Claimant)

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

Shiv Bagas @ Vikas Sahu S/o Ram Naresh Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o House No.179, Ward No.33, Village, Sarora, Thana- Urla, Distt. Raipur ( CG) (Driver of offending vehicle ar No.CG-04-LX-3500)

¶11

Smt. Payal Agrawal W/o Ram Naresh Agrawal Aged About 37 Years R/o Harshit Vihar, In Front of Upadhyay Hospital, Hirapur, Thana- Kabir Nagar, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (Owner of offending vehicle Car No. C.G.-04-L.X-3500)

¶12

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, ADD- Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Pandri, Raipur, Distict- Raipur (CG) (Insurer of offending vehicle Car No.CG-04-LX-3500).

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

For Appellant	: Mr. A.L. Singraul, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 & 2	: Mr. Lukesh Kumar Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent Nos.3	Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate

¶15

2

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶17

Judgment On Board

¶18

18/7/2025

¶19

Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal challenging the award dated 4.9.2024 passed by the learned 5^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.1008/2023.

¶20

Facts of the case in brief are that on 11.8.2019, claimant was travelling in a car bearing registration No.CG04-LX-3500 and going to KPS School from Hirapur to play. At about 8:30 a.m. when he reached near Sarona Over-bridge, the car bearing registration mark CG04-LX-3500, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver (non-applicant No.1), dashed the said car in which claimant was travelling and caused accident. In the said accident, claimant sustained multiple grievous injures which resulted into 80% permanent disability. An application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.1,72,50,000/- with interest was filed by claimant on the ground that at the time of accident, claimant was 15 years old bright student, due to injuries sustained by him in the said accident, his left leg above knee was amputated as a result he became permanently disabled.

¶21

Non-applicant No.1, driver and owner of offending vehicle,

¶22

3

¶23

filed their joint reply denying the averments made in claim application. It was specifically pleaded that injured was playing on road and on being pushed by his friends, he came in front of the offending vehicle and accident occurred. Accident was not the outcome of negligent act on the part of non-applicant No.1. At the time of accident vehicle was duly insured with non-applicant No.3, non-applicant No.1 was possessed with valid and effective driving license and the offending vehicle was not plied on road in violation of any of the conditions of insurance policy and therefore, insurance company is liable to pay amount of compensation, if any, awarded to claimant.

¶24

Non-applicant No.3 also filed its reply pleading that on the date of accident, it was the injured who was driving the car and not the insured. On the date of accident, driver of offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license, it was insured for private use but at the time of accident it was being used for some other purpose. Hence, non-applicant No.2 is not liable to indemnify the insured.

¶25

The Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of evidence and documents brought on record by respective parties, arrived at a conclusion that accident occurred due to rash and negligent act on the part of driver of offending vehicle causing grievous injuries to claimant, there was no violation of any condition of

¶26

4

¶27

insurance policy and accordingly, allowed the application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.40,07,198/- together with interest @ 9% p.a. and fastened liability upon nonapplicants, jointly and severally, to satisfy the impugned award.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal wrongly assessed the monthly income of appellant at 7,800/-, whereas it should be Rs.8,920/- per month as per the minimum wage of skilled worker at the time of the accident. He further submits that the compensation awarded under the head of pain and suffering, attendant charges, special diet is on lower side as the appellant has suffered amputation of left leg above knee. For the aforesaid reason, he submits that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is meager and inadequate, and the same needs to be enhanced suitably.

¶29

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents would submit that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal was arrived at, by taking the relevant factors into consideration and that the amount awarded is just and reasonable. The impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, warranting interference

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned award and documents available in record of the

¶31

5

¶32

Claims Tribunal.

¶33

Appellant-claimant is a minor aged about 15 years. Discharge summary, Ex.P-12, issued by Shri Sankalp Hospital, Raipur shows that appellant was admitted on11.8.2019 and discharged on 7.9.2019; he suffered “RTA with head injury with fracture of left femur shaft with fracture proximal tibia epiphysis with knee dislocation” and amputation left lower limb above knee was done on 13.8.2019. Discharge summary, Ex.P-18, issued by Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad would show that he was admitted on 21.9.2019, he underwent surgery/procedure “refracture ORIF mandible debridement secondary suturing gluteal cleft, debridement secondary suturing left thigh stump circumcision” and thereafter discharged on 23.9.2019. Disability certificate, Ex.P-41 (C) is issued by the District Medical Board, Govt. District Hospital Raipur (CG) wherein the disability of minor claimant-appellant is fixed as 80% permanent physical impairment. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the Claims Tribunal has rightly fixed the disability of the minor claimant as 80% permanent disability and held the same as functional disability also. This Court finds no infirmity in the said finding and the same is hereby confirmed.

¶34

With regard to quantum of compensation awarded towards loss of future earning, the Claims Tribunal treated the claimant to be an unskilled labourer and fixed his income as Rs.7,800/- which is notified under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for unskilled

¶35

6

¶36

worker residing in ‘C’ Zone, which in the opinion of this Court is not correct. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand and others, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413, has assessed the notional income of a child claimant on the basis of minimum wages payable to a skilled workman by recording that after studying, the child could have worked and would have earned much more than Rs.15,000/- p.a. In case at hand, it has been pleaded in claim application that appellant was a bright student of Class 9^th . Undisputedly, accident in question occurred on 11.8.2019 while the claimant was travelling in car and claimant is resident of Raipur. As per classification of zones by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act 1948, ‘Raipur city’ falls within Zone ‘A’ area and minimum wage rate notified for an unskilled worker of Raipur for the period from 1.4.2019 to 30.9.2019 is Rs.8,920/- per month. Hence, I deem it proper to fix income of appellant as Rs.8,920/- per month in place of Rs.7,800/- per month as assessed by Claims Tribunal.

¶37

Accordingly, the monthly income of deceased is taken as Rs.8,920/- and after adding 40% towards loss of future prospects, the total income comes to Rs.12,488/- and annual comes to Rs.1,49,856/-. By applying multiplier of 18, total amount of compensation would come to Rs.26,97,408/-. As the claimant has suffered 80% permanent disability, as determined by the Claims Tribunal, the loss of future earning suffered by applicant would come to Rs.21,57,926/- (80% of

¶38

7

¶39

2697408). It is ordered accordingly.

¶40

Considering the extent of permanent disability i.e. 80%, age of appellant i.e. 15 years at the time of accident and further considering the fact that for the remaining life, he will have to suffer the trauma of not being able to do his normal work without assistance, therefore, I am of the view that ends of justice will be met by awarding him a sum of Rs.1,50,000 for pain and suffering caused to appellant due to the amputation of his left leg above knee. It is accordingly ordered that appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- for pain and suffering.

¶41

It can only be a matter of imagination as to how the appellant will have to live for the rest of life with one artificial leg, hence, the award of Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of amenities is also enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/- considering that the disability not only restricts physical movement of appellant but also affects his capacity to enjoy basic pleasures of life and participate in ordinary social and recreational activities.

¶42

Considering the nature of injury and period of treatment, the sum of Rs.10,000/- granted towards Special Diet is on lower side and therefore, the same is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. It is ordered accordingly.

¶43

The Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards attendant charges. However, considering that due to amputation of left leg above knee, appellant due to reduced mobility would always require some assistance in doing his routine works,

¶44

8

¶45

therefore, the compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards attendant charges is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. It is ordered accordingly.

¶46

n view of above, claimant/appellant is now entitled for

¶47

compensation as under;-

¶48

HEADS		:	AMOUNT(In Rs.)
Loss of future earning		:	21,57,926=00
Medical Expenses		:	18,35,222=00
Forpain and sufferings		:	1,50,000=00
For loss of amenities		:	1,50,000=00
For Special Diet		:	25,000=00
For conveyance		:	20,000=00
For Attendant		:	1,00,000=00
	Total:		44,38,198=00

¶49

Now, claimant/appellant is held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.44,38,198/- in place of Rs.40,07,198/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. This enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 9% 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.

¶50

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

¶51

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶52

roshan/-

Mithlesh Changa v. Shiv Bagas @ Vikash Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithlesh Changa v. Shiv Bagas @ Vikash Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Jaleshwar Singh Sahu

Smt. Savita Sidar Vs Suryanath Kumar

Smt. Sonmati Kashyap Vs Naresh Kumar Kumhar

Bandhan Singh Vs Itwar Singh

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Ganga Bai

Meena Xalxo Vs Ranjeet Paikra