Mahendra Sodhi Vs Midun Krishna

¶1

1 / 7

¶2

2025:CGHC:42412

¶3

PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 158 of 2020

¶6

Mahendra Sodhi S/o Late Arjun Sodhi, Aged About 65 Years R/o Geedam Road Ganganagar Ward No. 39 P.S. Bodhghat Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh..

¶7

--- Appellant/ Applicant-Claimant

¶8

versus

¶9

Midun Krishna S/o Unikrishna Nair R/o Puthuril House P.O. Vijaypalli Chegancheri District Kotyam Kerla Pin 686103 ( Driver of Offending Vehicle CG-17-KC-3734).

¶10

Sagar Praashad S/o Late Gokul Prashad Aged About 35 Years R/o Pandit Deendayal Ward Raut Para Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh ( Owner of Offending Vehicle CG-17-KC-3734).

¶11

Through Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited, Aakashwani Road Jagdalpur, District Bastar (Chhattisgarh) ( Insurer of Offending Vehicle CG-17-KC-3734).

¶12

--- Respondents/ Non-applicants

¶13

____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶15

Judgment On Board

¶16

21/08/2025

¶17

There is no representation on behalf of Respondent No. 2, though served.

¶18

Notice sent to Respondent No. 1, driver of the offending vehicle, is returned unserved with a note, not residing on the given address.

¶19

Learned counsel for appellant submits that the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is fastened upon non-applicant No. 3-insurance

¶20

2 / 7

¶21

company which is represented by the counsel and therefore appeal be heard at motion stage.

¶22

Submission of learned counsel for appellant of fastening liability upon Respondent No. 3 is not disputed by counsel for respondent No. 3. He submits that if appeal is heard finally at motion stage, he is having no objection.

¶23

Appellant-claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”), challenging the award dated 31.10.2019 passed by Learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, Dist. Bastar, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 83/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part, awarded total sum of ₹ 1,80,640/- as compensation in motor accidental injury case.

¶24

Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 18.10.2017, at about 10:15 a.m., appellant-applicant was going on his motorcycle (CG 17 KA 9639) from his house in Ganganagar towards Sanjay Bazar. When he reached near Krishna Petrol Pump on Geedam Road, motorcycle bearing number CG 17 KC 3734 (henceforth “offending motorcycle”) driven by non-applicant No. 01 in a rash and negligent manner collided with his motorcycle, causing an accident. As a result, applicant sustained fracture below the knee of his left leg and suffered 47% permanent disability. The accident was reported at Police Station Bodhghat, Jagdalpur, where a case was registered against non-applicant No. 01.

¶25

Non-applicant No. 2 proceeded ex parte before the Tribunal and no reply has been filed on his behalf. Other non-applicants have denied the allegations by filing their reply. Non-applicant No. 01 stated that no such

¶26

3 / 7

¶27

accident occurred with his vehicle and that the applicant himself slipped and fell. Insurance company (non-applicant No. 3) pleaded that the applicant was riding without a license and insurance, in a rash and negligent manner, and hit the motorcycle of non-applicant No. 01. It was argued that the accident was due to applicant’s own negligence and therefore the claim for compensation is not maintainable.

¶28

Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that appellant suffered grievous injuries causing permanent disability in an accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending motorcycle driven by non-applicant No. 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved. Tribunal calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 1,80,640/- as total compensation with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization and fastened liability to satisfy the award upon non-applicants jointly and severally.

¶29

Learned counsel for appellant-claimant would submit that the appellant has filed this appeal seeking amount of compensation on the ground that the Claims Tribunal erred in determining 16% loss of income due to permanent disability suffered by him instead of 47% as mentioned in the Disability Certificate Ext. A-1 and proved by the doctor AW-1. He also contended that the income of appellant-claimant has been assessed much on lower side overlooking the pleadings made in the application that the occupation of claimant was driver (transport vehicle) and earning ₹ 15,000 per month. Therefore amount of compensation be enhanced suitably.

¶30

4 / 7

¶31

Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that the Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of evidence, documentary and oral, brought on record by the claimant came to conclusion that 47% permanent disability is mentioned in document Ext. A-1 is only with regard to part of body and not for the whole body and therefore upon appreciating document, evidence of doctor, AW-1 that disability for the whole body would be 16%, had arrived at a conclusion that appellant has suffered 16% loss of income which cannot be said to be erroneous. He also submits that in absence of prove of income by producing admissible evidence, Claims Tribunal justified in assessing income notionally as ₹ 6,000 per month. Employer was not examined to prove salary certificate placed on record by appellant-claimant as Ext. P-13.

¶32

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

¶33

So far as the ground raised by counsel for appellant with regard to assessment of loss of income to the extent of 16% is concerned, perusal of Disability Certificate, Ext. A-1, would show that Medical Board issued Disability Certificate mentioning Locomotive disability on left leg. It also mentions malunited fracture of tibia fibula left. To prove Disability Certificate Ext. A-1, appellant-claimant examined Dr. L.L. Thakur as AW-1. In his evidence this witness categorically stated that the fracture of tibia fibula was united by way of operation. In cross-examination, he also stated that for whole body percentage of disability is 16%. AW-1 is an expert of his field and therefore assessment of permanent disability for whole body as 16%, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be said to be erroneous.

¶34

5 / 7

¶35

Claims Tribunal on appreciation of documentary and oral evidence justified in assessing loss of earning capacity of appellant as 16%. Hence, it is affirmed.

¶36

So far as second ground with regard to assessment of income is concerned, date of accident is 18.10.2017, salary slip as produced by the appellant before the Claims Tribunal is not proved by admissible evidence as author of document has not been examined as witness before the Claims Tribunal who is stated to be employer of appellant. Appellant stated that he was engaged as driver and prior to date of accident he was driving truck. True it is that salary certificate showing income of ₹ 15,000 per month is not proved by clinching evidence, as author of document/ employer has not been examined by claimant. But perusal of record would show that claimant has filed copy of licence as Ext. A-11c in the name of Mahendra Singh ie., appellant/claimant. Licence mentions class of vehicle for which licence was issued as Light Motor Vehicle, Motorcycle with Gear, PSVBUS and transport vehicle. Validity of transport vehicle is mentioned up to 10.11.2018. Licnece placed on record as Ext. 11-c is not disputed or controverted by non-applicant No. 3-insurance company before the Claims Tribunal and therefore in view of the aforementioned facts of the case and the copy of licence available on record in the name of appellant authorising him to drive transport vehicle, it is appearing that prior to accident appellant was doing work of driver for the purpose of earning his livelihood.

¶37

As this Court came to the conclusion that income as pleaded and stated by the claimant has not been proved by admissible evidence and therefore I find it appropriate to take help of minimum wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the period from 01.10.2017 to 31.03.2018 minimum wages for skilled labourer of B-

¶38

6 / 7

¶39

zone area fixed as ₹ 9,620 per month. Accordingly, income of appellant is assessed as ₹ 9,620 per month for the purpose of calculating amount of compensation. It is ordered accordingly.

¶40

Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head of loss of income during period of treatment. Looking to the nature of injury suffered and occupation of appellant, as the appellant could not be able to do work of driver for period of four months, therefore, I find it appropriate to award compensation towards loss of income for a period of four months which comes to ₹ 38,480 (₹ 9620X4).

¶41

Apart from compensation on the above heads calculated by this Court, claimant will also be entitled for ₹ 20,000 towards pain and suffering, ₹ 50,000 towards future medical treatment, ₹ 20,000 towards special diet and conveyance, ₹ 10,000 towards attendant as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Claimant will further be entitled for ₹ 20,000 towards loss of amenities in life.

¶42

For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded

¶43

to appellants-claimants requires re-computation, which is as under.

¶44

Particulars	Compensation
• Annual Loss of income = ₹ 1,15,440/-	₹ 1,29,293/-
(₹9620x12)
• Multiplier of 7
• (₹ 1,15,440 x 7 = ₹ 8,08,080)
• 16% loss of earning capacity due to permanent disability (₹ 8,08,080 x 16% = ₹ 1,29,293)
Loss of income of four months during treatment	₹ 38,480/-
Pain and sufferings (maintained)	₹ 20,000/-
Future Medical Treatment (maintained)	₹ 50,000/-
Special Diet and conveyance (maintained)	₹ 20,000/-
Attender charges (maintained)	₹ 10,000/-
Loss of amenities in life	₹ 20,000/-
Total	₹ 2,87,773

¶45

7 / 7

¶46

Now the appellant/claimant shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 2,87,773/- instead of ₹ 1,80,640/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization.

¶47

Any amount paid to the appellant-claimant pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above.

¶48

Rest of the conditions as imposed by the Claims Tribunal in the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶49

Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶52

pwn

Mahendra Sodhi v. Midun Krishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Sodhi v. Midun Krishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manager, United Insurance Company Vs Smt. Manju Jha

Mrs. Keja Bai Patle Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Branch Manager, Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Janmati

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Anita Netam

Sukhram Kowasi Vs Diwakar Sona

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Vs Daya Bai Maghvani