Chetan Razak Vs Arat Das @ Bhopu Markandey

1. Arat Das @ Bhopu Markandey S/o Anjor Das Markandey, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Devpura Post And P.S. Gandai Tahsil Chhuikhadan District: Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2. Horilal Nirmalkar S/o A. Nirmalkar, R/o Village And Post Lemo P.S. Gandai Tahsil Chhuikhadan District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3. General Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Near L.I.C. Office Near Railway Station Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Appellant : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 & 2 : None, though served. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate with Mr. Shubham Agrawal, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board

¶15

09.07.2025

¶16

1. This appeal is by the claimant/injured against the award dated 08.08.2016 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh, District:

¶17

2

¶18

Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 4 of 2015 awarding total compensation of Rs. 6,78,062/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till realization, fastening liability on the respondents, jointly and severally.

¶19

2. As per the claim petition, on 05.08.2014, at 09:30 pm, the appellant was returning to his residence at Gandai on his vehicle, a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 04 CU 8138. Upon reaching Village Devpura, the respondent No. 1, while driving the Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. CG 09 B 1166 (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”), rashly and negligently collided with the appellant. As a result of the said collision, the appellant sustained fractures to his left leg and hand, along with multiple injuries to his body. Thereafter, the appellant was initially taken to the Government Hospital, Gandai, from where he was referred to the Government Hospital, Rajnandgaon, and subsequently to a hospital in Life Worth Hospital, Raipur. Owing to the severity of the injury to the appellant’s left leg was amputated and also a rod was inserted in his left hand. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2 and was duly insured with respondent No. 3.

¶20

3. On claim petition being filed by the claimant/injured under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation to the tune of Rs. 28,14,400/-, the Tribunal considering the evidence led by both the parties passed an award as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.

¶21

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that due to vehicular accident, the appellant had got amputation on his left leg, however, the Tribunal has treated permanent disability of such amputation to the extent of 50%. He further submits that the appellant was aged about 38 years at the time of accident and the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the appellant at Rs. 3,000/- per month on notional basis, which is

¶22

3

¶23

on very lower side and needs to be reassessed suitably in view of provisions contained in Minimum Wages. He further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head Loss of Future Income and Prospects. He also submits that the appellant was admitted in hospital for 28 days where his leg was amputated above the knee, but no amount was awarded for artificial limb. Besides above, the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any sufficient amount under various conventional heads and expenses incurred during his treatment, which also needs to be enhanced suitably.

¶24

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 3/Insurance company, while admitting that no appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the impugned award, submits that the appellant-claimant was aged about 38 years at the time of accident, therefore, the applicable multiplier would be 15 in place of 16 and the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, which needs no interference by this Court. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.

¶25

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶26

7. So far as the issue Nos. 1 and 2 framed by the learned Claims Tribunal are concerned, the said issues were answered in affirmative by holding that injured by holding that injured/appellant sustained grievous injuries over his body on account of vehicular accident caused by offending vehicle which was being driven by the respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner.

¶27

8. It is evident from perusal of record that the deceased was working in Shri Travels as Operator and was aged about 38 years at the time of accident. It is also evident from the statement of AW-1 Chetan Razak and from MLC report marked as Ex.P/13, that fracture was found on his left leg and left hand due to which, he was admitted in Life Worth Hospital, Raipur from 06.08.2014 to

¶28

4

¶29

02.09.2014 as is evident from the Medical Bills vide Ex. P/15 to Ex. P/142. Ex. P/144 is a disability certificate issued by District Medical Board, Rajnandgaon which has been proved by Dr. Y.K. Tiwari (AW-3) and he has categorically stated that the appellant has suffered 60% permanent disablement. However, the Tribunal assessed permanent disability to the extent of 50%, which is just and proper and needs no interference.

¶30

9. As regards the income of the claimant/injured, though the claimant/injured in the claim petition have pleaded that the claimant was earning Rs. 9,450/- per month by working as Operator, but no reliable evidence in support of thereof has been adduced by the claimant to substantiate the said pleading. However, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month on notional basis, which in the considered opinion of this Court is not correct. Therefore, considering the Minimum Wages provisions prevailed at the relevant time of accident and the nature of work of the claimant, I propose to recompute the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 5,468/- instead of Rs. 3,000/- and accordingly, the annual income is worked out Rs. 65,616/- per annum.

¶31

10. As regards the multiplier 16 used by the Tribunal, in this case, the Tribunal assessed the age of the claimant as 38 years, but erred in applying the multiplier 16, which in the considered opinion of this Court is not correct. Therefore, looking to the age of the claimant and in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the applicable multiplier would be 15 in place of 16. Further, the Tribunal has also erred in not granting any amount towards future prospects, which in the considered opinion of this Court is not just and proper. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi (supra) has considered 40% towards loss of future prospects for the self-employed persons who are below 40 years. Therefore, in the present

¶32

5

¶33

case, looking to the age of the claimant i.e. 38 years, as assessed by the Tribunal, the applicable percentage towards future prospects would be 40%. Further, considering the nature of the grievous injuries, namely the amputation of the leg above knee and due to multiple fractures on his hand, a rod was also inserted in his hand, and the period of hospitalization of the appellant across various hospitals and during that period, the appellant must have suffered pain and suffering owing to injuries sustained by him and must have incurred expenses for getting better treatment. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of injuries suffered by the claimant, the period of his hospitalization in different hospitals and the expenses incurred by him, ends of justice would be served, if the claimant is granted an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- under the head of Pain and Suffering and Loss of Amenities, Rs. 2,00,000/- towards Artificial Limb, Rs. 10,000/- for Attendant and Rs. 8,000/- towards Transport expenses.

¶34

11. Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, evidence available on record, looking to the nature of job and injury sustained by the appellant/claimant, this Court reassesses the compensation in the following

¶35

manner:

¶36

S. No.	Particular	Awarded by this Court
1.	Annual income of the appellant	Rs. 5468 x 12 = Rs. 65,616/-
2.	Future Prospects @ 40%	Rs. 26,246/-
3.	Total Income	Rs. 91,862/-
4.	Loss of Earning Capacity @ 50%	Rs. 45,931/-
5.	Multiplier of 15 applied to assess the Loss of earning capacity	Rs. 6,88,965/-
6.	For Medical Expenses	Rs. 3,82,062/-
6.	Pain and Suffering	Rs. 1,50,000/-
7.	For artificial limb	Rs. 2,00,000/-
8.	For Transport	Rs. 8,000/-
9.	For Attendant	Rs. 10,000/-

¶37

6

¶38

10.	For Special Diet	Rs. 2,000/- (as awarded
		by the Tribunal)
	Total Compensation	Rs. 14,41,027/-

¶39

12. The amount of compensation of Rs. 6,78,062/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 14,41,027/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 6,78,062/-, the claimant is held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 7,62,965/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶40

13. It is pertinent to mention here that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. The Claims Tribunals must bear in mind the object of the Act in awarding just and fair compensation to the victim in motor accident cases and it is also the bounden duty of the Courts/Tribunals to see that the victim or injured of the motor accident cases is properly and reasonably compensated and in assessing, what has been described as a just compensation under the Act, all factors including possibilities have to be kept in mind.

¶41

14. In the result, the appeal is allowed with the modification in the impugned award to the above extent.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

( Radhakishan Agrawal ) JUDGE

¶44

Saurabh

Chetan Razak v. Arat Das @ Bhopu Markandey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chetan Razak v. Arat Das @ Bhopu Markandey

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

Foolmati Gendre Vs Laxman Gendre

Hitesh Kumar Sahu Vs Somprakash Verma

Harishankar Mehar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Nakul Ram Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Kamlesh Singh Rajput Vs Ramjas Kaushik

Ajay Shukla Vs Arun Kumar