National Insurance Company Limited Vs Dujram Lahre

¶1

-1-

¶2

2025:CGHC:26992

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 1875 of 2019

¶6

Dujram Lahare S/o Shri Sonau Ram Aged About 25 Years R/o Durga Chowk Santoshi Nagar, Police Station Tikarapara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

--- Appellant (s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Ram Akbal Yadav S/o Late Chandrika Yadav Aged About 45 Years R/o Sangram Chowk, Camp 1, Bhilai Steel Nagar, Ward Number 19, Police Station Chhavani, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Tata Sumo No. C.G. 07/m.A./2035), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Thakur Ram Sahu S/o Feruram Sahu Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Achhoti Police Station Adn Post Anda, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Tata Sumo No. C.G. 07/m.A./2035), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - The National Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Company Limited, Address Mobin Mahal G.E. Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Tata Sumo No. C.G. 07/m.A./2035), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

--- Respondent(s)

¶13

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.07.01 10:15:02 +0530

¶14

__________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate

¶15

_______________________________________________________

¶16

-2-

¶17

MAC No. 249 of 2020

¶18

National Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Company Limited, Address Mobin Mahal, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle Tata Sumo No. C.G. 07-M.A. 2035) (Non-Applicant No. 3), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶19

Appellant (s)

¶20

Versus

¶21

1 - Dujram Lahre S/o Shri Sonau Ram Aged About 25 Years R/o Durga Chowk, Santoshi Nagar, Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶22

2 - Ram Akbal Yadav S/o Late Chandrika Yadav Aged About 45 Years R/o Sangram Chowk, Camp-1 Bhilai, Steel Nagar, Ward No. 19, Police Station Chhawani, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle Tata Sumo No. C.G. 07-M.A. 2035), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶23

3 - Thakur Ram Sahu S/o Feru Ram Sahu Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Achhoti, Police Station And Post Anda, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle Tata Sumo No. C.G. 07-M.A. 2035), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶24

--- Respondent(s)

¶25

______________________ For Appellant (s)	____________________________________ : Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate
For Respondent No.1	: Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate
For Respondents No. 2	:Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondents No. 3	:None appears though served

¶26

_______________________________________________________

¶27

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

¶28

Judgment On Board

¶29

23/06/2025

¶30

As both the appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) arise out of same award dated 22.08.2018 passed by learned VIII Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Motor Accident Claim Case No.422 of 2016, these appeals are being disposed off by this common order.

¶31

-3-

¶32

MAC No.1875 of 2019 is filed by applicant/claimant- Dujram seeking enhancement of amount of compensation and MAC No.249 of 2019 is filed by non-applicant/National Insurance Company challenging the award of compensation on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal has erroneously assessed disability suffered by the claimant to be in permanent nature contrary to evidence available on record.

¶33

Mr. Qamrul Aziz, learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company in MAC No.249 of 2019 submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding compensation treating the claimant's disablement to be permanent in nature, whereas, from the documentary evidence available on record it could only be considered to be temporary disablement. Hence, addition of 40% of the assessed income of claimant towards future prospects for computing total income is also erroneous. In cases of temporary disablement there cannot be an award of compensation towards future prospects.

¶34

Mr. A.L. Singroul, learned counsel for the claimant vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for the Insurance Company and submits that learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of documentary and oral evidence brought on record has rightly concluded that claimant suffered permanent disablement. For recording such finding, learned Tribunal has also considered the oral evidence of doctor and contents of disability certificate. Learned Tribunal has rightly applied 40% of loss of future prospects considering the permanent disability suffered by claimant. He contended that upon appreciation of evidence of doctor, learned Tribunal has already

¶35

-4-

¶36

reduced the percentage of disability from 30% to 20% and assessed loss in income accordingly. Hence, it does not call for any interference. He, however, contended that claimant has also filed appeal seeking enhancement of amount of compensation on the ground that learned Tribunal assessed income of claimant on lower side overlooking date of accident and nature of occupation as pleaded and stated by the claimant in claim application and evidence before the Court to be Carpenter. The nature of work of Carpenter is of skilled worker, however, Tribunal erred in assessing the income of claimant/appellant treating him to be an ordinary labourer.

¶37

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶38

So as to appreciate submission of learned counsel for the appellant /insurance company in MAC No.249 of 2020 I have perused the records of case.

¶39

Claimant along with claim application has submitted copy of final report as Ex.P-1, copy of FIR Ex.P-2 copy of MLC as Ex.P-3, copy of Admission Form of Soni Multi-specialty Hospital and Maternity Home, Raipur as Ex.P-4. In Admission Form, injury suffered by claimant is mentioned as under :-

¶40

“ - Multiple facial injury

¶41

Lacerated wound in (Rt) Supraorbital Region (2.5 x 1x0.5 cm)

¶42

Pain in back Region

¶43

-Abrasion in forehead (Rt) cheek, (Lt.) Cheek

¶44

and Nose

¶45

-5-

¶46

NO-H/O - loss of consciousness

-vomiting chakkar

H/o- RTA

fall from bike ”

It also mentions fracture of L-5. CT Scan of claimant is also available on record as Ex.P-11. MRI of Lumbar Spine is available on record as Ex.P-15 and Impression in MRI of Lumbar Spine is mentioned in Ex.P16 which reads as under:

¶51

“ 1. Straightening of lumbar spine-suggesting paraspinal muscle spasm.

¶52

Transition vertebra with lumbarization of S1 body.

¶53

Schmorl’s node seen involving L5 and plate.

¶54

Grade 1 anterolisthesis of L5 over S1 body

¶55

Fracture Bilateral L5 pars interarticularis.

¶56

Spondylotic changes of lumbar spine with multilevel disc degeneration most marked at L5S1 level with mild neural foraminal narrowing indenting the thecal sac & indentations on bilateral existing L5 nerve roots.”

¶57

Ex.P-15, apart from other observations, there is mention of Fracture Bilateral L-5 Pars interarticularies. The disability certificate issued by Medical Board is filed as Ex.P-39 which mentions 30% disability and further it also mentions that certificate is issued for a period of 3 years. Dr. N.K. Mandpe is examined as AW-2. In his evidence he has stated that he is Member of Medical Board and Orthopedics specialist.

¶58

-6-

¶59

Disability certificate is issued considering old fracture of L-5 and disability to the extent of 30%. He further stated that after three years there may be reduction or increase in disability up to 5 to 10 percent. In the evidence this witness has not stated that after three years there are chances of curing disability as mentioned in disability certificate but the Medical Board while examining the claimant have assessed 30% disability and doctor in his evidence stated that percentage of disability may increase or decrease by 5 to 10 percent. Learned Tribunal for assessing amount of compensation has assessed loss of income due to permanent disability to extent of 20% which cannot be said to be erroneous and therefore ground raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that learned Tribunal has erroneously assessed disability of claimant to be permanent disability and adding 40% towards future prospects to be erroneous, is not sustainable and it is accordingly repelled.

¶60

In the case of Sidram Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance company Limited and Anr. (2023) 3 SCC 439, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in case of permanent disablement, there shall be addition of future prospects in the ratio as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680. For this reason also, submission of learned counsel for Insurance Company is not sustainable and it is hereby repelled. No other ground is raised by learned counsel for the appellant -Insurance Company and therefore MAC No. 249 of 2020 filed by appellant- Insurance Company, being

¶61

-7-

¶62

devoid of any substance, is liable to be dismissed.

¶63

So far as submission of learned counsel for the appellant/claimant in MAC No.1875 of 2019 that amount of compensation awarded is on lower side and that learned Claims Tribunal has not assessed nature of occupation and income as pleaded in claim application is concerned, perusal of the record would show that claimant, except self serving statement with regard to nature of occupation, has not brought on record any other evidence either documentary or oral of independent witness that claimant on the date of accident was doing work of Carpenter. In absence of any such evidence with regard to nature of occupation, in the opinion of this Court, learned Tribunal has not committed any error in considering the nature of occupation of claimant to be one of unskilled labourer and accordingly assessing his income on notional basis. However, for the purpose of computing income of claimant on notional basis, Tribunal/Court have to keep in mind the factors like cost of living, price index, wage rates structure and also minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act for unskilled labourer prevailing on the date of accident. As there is no material to suggest about the wages prevailing on the date of accident, at place of which the claimant is resident of, I find it appropriate to assess the income of claimant keeping in mind the minimum wages fixed by competent authority and prevailing on the date of accident. The date of accident is 07.02.2016. As per the notification issued by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, minimum wage fixed for period from 01.10.2016 till

¶64

-8-

¶65

31.03.2017 will apply which mention wages of unskilled labourer to be Rs.6206/-. It is ordered accordingly.

¶66

Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded medical expenses of Rs.29,296/- upon appreciation of documentary evidence brought on record, hence also, it does not call for any interference.

¶67

Learned Tribunal has awarded consolidated amount of Rs.60,000/towards ‘Pain and Suffering, Special Diet and Attendant’ which also in the opinion of this Court cannot be said to be on lower side and it is affirmed.

¶68

Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under the head “loss of amenities of life” . In the facts of case where the appellant suffered permanent disablement to the extent of 30% and loss of earning capacity of 20% and looking to nature of injury i.e. fracture of L-5 lumbar spine as also age of the appellant to be 25 years, I find it appropriate to award Rs.25,000/- towards ‘loss of amenities of life’. It is ordered accordingly.

¶69

For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:-

¶70

S. N.	Heads		Compensation
1.	Loss of Income	:	Rs. 3,75,336
	(A) Income
	6206 x 12 =74472
	(B) Addition towards future prospects @ 40%(74472 x 40% =29789)
	74472+29789 = 1,04,261

¶71

-9-

¶72

(C) Loss of earning capacity of
20%
( 1,04,261 x 20 % =20852)
(D) Multiplier of 18
20852 x 18 = 375336
2. Medical Expenses : (+) Rs. 29,296
3. Pain and Suffering, Special Diet : (+) Rs. 60,000
and Attendant
4. Loss of Amenities of Life : (+) Rs. 25,000
Total compensation Rs. 4,89,632

¶73

Now the appellant/claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs. 4,89,632/- instead of Rs.4,52,176/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

¶74

Aforementioned total amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Other conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. f 201

¶75

In the result, MAC No.1875 of 2019 filed by appellant/claimant allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein above. 9MAC No. 249 of 2020 filed by appellant- Insurance Company is dismissed . filed by appellant/claimant is allowed in part t

¶76

Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶77

Praveen

National Insurance Company Limited v. Dujram Lahre

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Company Limited v. Dujram Lahre

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

Branch Manager Cholamandlam General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Sunita Sahu

Smt. Rani Kori Vs Vijay Kumar Vastrakar

Deepak Vs Sushil Yadav

Smt. Chandani Bai Deewan Vs Raghunandan

Dr. Smt. Rajat Toppo Vs Amardeep Kujur

Vijendra Lal Sahu Vs Narendra Singh