Partly allowed

Kartikram Sahu v. Durgeshwar Nayak

Chhattisgarh HC6 Jul 2025MAC/261/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Injury claim appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Court upheld computation of loss of future income for three years based on temporary 45% disability, enhanced notional income to minimum wage of Rs.5,617 per month, added heads like attendant and conveyance, and enhanced total compensation.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced from Rs.1,36,380 to Rs.2,47,879 with 8% per annum interest from date of filing application till realization; award modified accordingly.

Kartikram Sahu Vs Durgeshwar Nayak — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

2025:CGHC:30981

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 261 of 2019

¶6

1 - Kartikram Sahu S/o Janikram Sahu Aged About 36 Years Caste- Teli, Occupation- Hotal Sanchalak, R/o Village- Dansara, Police Station And Tahsil- Sarangarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶7

--- Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Durgeshwar Nayak S/o Dayaram Nayak Aged About 40 Years CasteAghariya, Occupation- Agriculture, R/o Village- Khorigaon, TahsilBaramkela, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh(Vehicle Owner And Driver).

¶10

2 - Chola Mandalam General Insurance Company Limited Branch OfficerRahul Complex, First Floor Near Axis Bank Dhimrapur Road, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.16 11:32:08 +0530

¶12

…….Respondents. _____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. M.K. Jaiswal, Advocate For Resp. No.2 : Mr. Prshant Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶14

Order On Board

¶15

07/07/2025

¶16

Claimant/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking

¶17

¶18

enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sarangarh, District – Raigarh (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 29.09.2018 passed in Claim Case No.34/2016 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.1,36,380/- as compensation in an injury case.

¶19

Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that a claim application U/s.166 of the Act, 1988 was filed by the claimant/injured seeking compensation of Rs.4,88,682/- against the injury suffered by him in the road accident pleading therein that on 22/02/2015 at 04:30 pm, while applicant/injured was working with his mother Padmabai in his hotel situated on Baramkela road near village Dansara Barial at that relevant point of time, non-applicant No.1 while driving the offending tractor bearing No. CG-13-UF/1386 drove it rashly and negligently into the applicant's hotel, resulting in an accident. As a result of the accident, the applicant/injured suffered fracture in the right thigh bone, above the knee. He was initially taken to CHC Sarangarh for immediate first aid. However, due to the severity of the injury, he was subsequently referred to the District Hospital, Raigarh, for further treatment. It was stated that the applicant/injured was admitted to R.L. Agrawal Hospital, Raigarh, from 22/02/2015 to 28/02/2015, where he underwent surgery, and a rod was implanted in his right leg. Subsequently, he received further treatment as an inpatient from the hospital of Dr. B. Lalchandani in Bilaspur from 09/05/2015 to 14/05/2015. He was again admitted to Dr. Lalchandani’s hospital on two more occasions: from 11/01/2016 to 14/01/2016, and from 20/04/2016 to 22/04/2016, for continuous treatment related to the

¶20

¶21

injury. It was further stated that, as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident, the applicant/injured suffered permanent disability and is no longer able to perform his work as he did prior to the incident.

¶22

Non-applicant No.1 filed his reply to the claim application resisting the claim. Accident from the offending vehicle was denied. It was pleaded that applicant No.1 was having valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle. Non-applicant No.2 also filed its reply refuting the averments made in the claim. Accident from the offending vehicle was denied. At the time of accident, non-applicant No.1 was not having valid and effective driving license and the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of the conditions of insurance policy without any valid permit.

¶23

Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.1,36,380/- fastening the liability upon the non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company.

¶24

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded meager amount of compensation overlooking the nature of injuries and permanent disability suffered by him. He contended that learned Claims Tribunal has assessed loss of future income considering the disability suffered to the extent of 45%, however, the compensation is calculated for a period of three years only. While once the claims tribunal recorded a finding that appellant suffered permanent disability then the compensation is to be awarded considering the loss of future income for whole of his life. Amount of compensation under other heads is also on lower side. Lastly he

¶25

¶26

submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the claimant as Rs.4,500/- per month instead of Rs.9,000/as pleaded in the claim application by running hotel. He prays for enhancement of compensation suitably.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, which does not call for any interference.

¶28

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

¶29

Appellant met with an accident on 22.02.2015 and suffered fracture/injuries of his right leg. He took treatment as inpatient from R.L. Hospital, Raigarh from 22.02.2015 till 28.02.2015. He underwent surgery and rod was implanted. He realized pain over the injuries operated, he again took treatment from the hospital of Dr. D. Lalchandani at Bilaspur. He took treatment as inpatient from 09.05.2015 to 14.05.2015. Again he got admitted in Lalchandani hospital on 11.01.2016 to 14.01.2016. Copy of discharge ticket of Lalchandani Hospital is filed as Ex.A-10. Claimant further got himself admitted in Lalchandani Hospital on 20.04.2016 and discharged on 22.04.2016 for removal of implant. Claimant has further filed disability certificate as Ex.P-9. Perusal of the certificate it revealed that it was issued by District Medical Board, Raigarh mentioning 45% disability. In the disability certificate, it is mentioned as temporary for a period of three years. Claimant has not got examined after completion of three

¶30

¶31

years and no document is filed either before the Claims Tribunal or before this Court to show that even after completion of three years, claimant is facing disability to the extent of 45% as mentioned in the disability certificate. It appears that learned Claims Tribunal taking note of period of disability (temporary) has computed the amount of compensation towards loss of future income for a period of three years. In absence of any evidence that claimant/appellant suffered permanent disability in the opinion of this Court the Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in computing the amount of compensation for a period of three years.

¶32

The learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant as Rs.4,500/- per month. True it is that claimant could not able to prove the nature of employment as also the income of the deceased as pleaded in the application by producing clinching evidence. However, in the facts of the case, income of the claimant/injured is to be ascertained notionally, to which the leaned Claims Tribunal has assessed, however, the income assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal as Rs.4,500/- per month is on lower side. When the claimant could not be able to prove the nature of occupation and income of a person/deceased, it is for the Tribunal and the Court to assess the income of the deceased notionally considering his age, cost of living, price index, wage structure prevailing within the area etc. to be taken into consideration. The Tribunal and Courts may also take help of minimum wages fixed by the State and prevailing on the date of accident. Minium wages of labour during the relevant period from

¶33

¶34

01.10.2014 till 31.03.2015 was fixed by the Authority under the Act of 1948 was Rs.5,617/- per month.

¶35

In the case at hand, the claimants could not able to prove the nature of occupation and the income of the deceased by clinching evidence. In the said facts of the case I am of the view that the ends of justice would be served if the income of the claimant is taken on notional basis treating him to be doing the work of labourer as Rs.5,617/- per month. It is ordered accordingly.

¶36

As this Court has upheld the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal with regard to loss of earning capacity to the extent of 45% for a period of three years, the amount of compensation for loss of future earning is calculated accordingly. The annual loss of future income amounts to Rs.5,617 × 12 = Rs.67,404/-, and the total loss for a period of three years works out to Rs.67,404 × 3 = Rs.2,02,212/-. The loss of earning due to disability suffered by the appellant is held to the extent of 45%, therefore, compensation has to be calculated in that proportion and accordingly total compensation under the head of loss of earning capacity for a period of three years works out to Rs.90,995/-.

¶37

Perusal of the documents would show that claimant suffered motor accidental injuries on 22.02.2015. He took treatment till 14.01.2016 at different hospital. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation towards to the loss of income during the period of treatment. Considering the nature of injuries, the documents showing the treatment of the claimant I find it appropriate to award the loss of income for a period of one year during laid down period.

¶38

¶39

Accordingly, the loss of income during laid down period works out to Rs. 5,617 x 12 = Rs.67,404/-. It is ordered accordingly.

¶40

Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any illegality or infirmity in computing the compensation towards medical expenses, hence, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal towards medical expenses of Rs.38,480/- is affirmed.

¶41

The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded lump sum amount of Rs.25,000/- towards pains and suffering, attendant, conveyance expenses, which in the opinion of this Court is on lower side. Looking to the nature of injuries suffered by appellant, procedure and period of treatment, I find it appropriate to award Rs.15,000/- towards pains and suffering. Rs.8,000/- towards special diet. Rs.18,000/- towards attendant (for a period of three months) because the claimant might be attended by some person during the course of treatment and might had also taken assistance even after discharge from the hospital for sometime. I also find it appropriate to award Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance expenses. It is ordered accordingly.

¶42

On the basis of above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :-

¶43

S.N.	Head		Amount. (Rs)
1.	Loss of income for a period of threeyears	:	90,995.00
2.	Loss of income during laid downperiod	:	67,404.00
3.	For attendant	:	18,000.00
4.	For pain and suffering	:	15,000.00

¶44

¶45

5.	For special diet	:	8,000.00
6.	For medical expense	:	38,480.00
7.	For conveyance expenses	:	10,000.00
	Total Compensation	:	2,47,879.00

¶46

Accordingly the appeal is allowed in part. The applicant/injured shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs. 2,47,879.00. Any amount paid to the appellant/injured as compensation as per award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. The impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated hereinabove

¶47

above.

¶48

Balram

Kartikram Sahu v. Durgeshwar Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kartikram Sahu v. Durgeshwar Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Uttara Kashyap

Ku. Manisha Kishan Vs Kamal Jangde

Purssottam Singh Dhurvey Vs Mahendra Kumar

Bhukhan Lal Vishwakarma Vs Hulas Sahu

Ku. Nishtha Pandey Vs Joji Babu Ji

Smt. Sumitra Thakur Vs Joji Babu Ji