Sukhram Kowasi Vs Diwakar Sona

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:42416

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 294 of 2021

¶6

1 - Sukhram Kowasi S/o Pedaram Kowasi Aged About 26 Years (Mental Disabled) Through Natural Guardian Wife Smt. Laxmi, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Dokam, Police Station Kodenar, Tahsil Bastanar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶7

2 - Gandhi S/o Peda Kowasi Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Dokam, Police Station Kodenar, Tahsil Bastanar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

1 - Diwakar Sona S/o Dharam Das Sona Aged About 33 Years R/o Bacheli, Railwai Road Mudara Camp, Ward No. 16, Police Station Bacheli, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Highwa Registration Number Cg-18, M - 6107)., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Murgesh Association Proprietor Murgesh Redy, Purana Market, Bacheli District Dantewada Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Highwa Registration Number Cg - 18, M - 6107)., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Manager New India Insurance Company Limited Akashwani Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Highwa Registration Number Cg - 18, M - 6107)., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

For Appellants : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Pravin Tulsiyan, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Qumrul Aziz, Advocate

¶15

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

¶16

Order On Board

¶17

21/08/2025

¶18

Digitally SHUBHAM signed by DEY SHUBHAM DEY

¶19

2

¶20

Appellant/Claimant filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 20.01.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bastar, Place Jagdalpur, District – Bastar (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 109/2019.

¶21

Motor-accidental injuries suffered by the Appellant No. 1, involvement of offending vehicle, Respondent No. 3/Non-Applicant No. 3 to be insurer of the offending vehicle and liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company is not in dispute, hence, this Court is not adverting to the facts as pleaded in the claim application, reply and discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned award. However, this Court is only considering the grounds raised by counsel for appellant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation and submissions of counsels for the respective respondents in this regard.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding less amount of compensation considering the income of the Appellant/Claimant No. 1 as Rs. 6,000/per month only overlooking the wages prevailing and if not proved, the income as pleaded in the claim application, the Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the appellant/claimant based on the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority. He next contended that as per the Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board (Ex. A/9), the appellant suffered 45% permanent disability, however, Claims Tribunal has assessed loss of income to the extent of 15% only without appreciating the evidence of the treating doctor who issued the Disability Certificate in an appropriate manner. Award of compensation

¶23

3

¶24

awarded under the other heads is also not proper. Lastly, he contended that though the Claimant No. 1 suffered permanent disability, affecting loss of earning capacity, however, compensation towards the future prospects has not been awarded as held by the hon’ble supreme court in case of sidram vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr. reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439 .

¶25

Learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 & 2 would submit that he is appearing for the Driver and Owner of the offending vehicle. Liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon the Respondent No. 3/Non-Applicant No. 3.

¶26

Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company opposes the submission made by the counsel for appellants and would submit that the Doctor before the Claims Tribunal has categorically stated that the disability is with respect to the left leg and not for the whole body and further stated that the disability for the whole body would be 15%. He also pointed out that the Appellant No. 1/Claimant No. 1 failed to prove his income as pleaded in the claim application. Therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal justified in assessing income of the appellant/claimant notionally as Rs. 6,000/- per month. Compensation awarded under other heads is also just and proper which does not call for any interference.

¶27

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

¶28

So far as the first ground raised by the counsel for appellants with regard to loss of income due to disability suffered by the Appellant No. 1 to the extent of 45% is concerned, true it is that the disability certificate (ex. A/9) mentions 45% permanent disability. However, the

¶29

4

¶30

Doctor i.e. Dr. Lakhan Lal Thakur (AW – 2) in his evidence have stated that the disability for the whole body would be 15%. Witness Dr. Lakhan Lal Thakur (AW – 2) who is an Orthopedic Specialist, posted in Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur is also a member of the Medical Board. He is an expert in his field and have categorically stated that the disability for the whole body would be 15%. In the aforementioned facts of the case, where the doctor who issued the Disability Certificate and expert in the field have categorically mentioned the disability for the whole body would be 15%, submission of counsel for appellants that, the Claims Tribunal erred in not considering the loss of income due to permanent disability to the extent of 45% is erroneous is not sustainable. Accordingly, it is repelled . So far as the loss of earning as held by the learned Claims Tribunal to be of 15% is affirmed .

¶31

So far as the second submission of counsel for the appellants with regard to assessment of income of the claimant to be on lower side is concerned, the Claimant No. 1 though pleaded in the claim application that he was working as Mason at the time of accident and earning Rs. 12,000/- per month, however, he could not be able to prove the pleadings with regard to his occupation and income by placing clinching evidence. Claims Tribunal proceeded to assess income of the Appellant No. 1/Claimant No. 1 as Rs. 6,000 per month treating him to an Unskilled Labourer. In above facts of the case, where the Claimant No. 1 failed to prove occupation and income, Claims Tribunal can assess the income of deceased treating him to be Unskilled Labourer, taking note of the minimum-wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 as also, keeping in mind the factors like like price index, cost of living, wage structure prevailing in

¶32

5

¶33

the State. In the facts of the case, there is no suggestive evidence of the wages prevailing on the date of accident, at the place where the Appellant No. 1/Claimant No. 1 is resident of and therefore, I find it appropriate to take help of the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 fixing the income of Unskilled Labourer for a period from 01.10.2018 to 31.03.2019 on which, the income of Unskilled Labourer of ‘C’ Zone area is mentioned as Rs. 8,140/- per month. Therefore, I find it appropriate to determine the income of Appellant No. 1 as Rs. 8,140/- per month. It is ordered accordingly.

¶34

As discussed above, the Appellant No. 1 suffered 45% permanent disability over his right leg resulting in 15% functional disability and loss of income, therefore, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sidram (Supra) and considering the age of the Appellant No. 1 to be 26 years on the date of accident, I find it appropriate to add 40% of the established income towards future prospect to the income of Appellant No. 1 for the purpose of computing the amount of compensation. It is ordered accordingly.

¶35

Learned Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs. 20,000/- towards the attendant, Rs. 4,700/- towards conveyance, Rs. 5,000/- towards conveyance for the family members, Rs. 10,000/- towards future treatment of removing iron rod and screw, Rs. 5000/- towards special diet and Rs. 15,000/- towards pains and sufferings which is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Learned Claims Tribunal has applied multiplier of 17 which is to the tune of decision passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs.

¶36

6

¶37

Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 and does not call for any interference.

¶38

Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation towards loss of income during the period of treatment though taking note of the fact that the appellant took treatment as inpatient from Om Hospital Raipur for the period from 23.12.2018 to 28.01.2019. The injury as mentioned in the discharge summary (Ex. A/15) would show that the claimant suffered head injury, fracture of right Tibia Febula. Considering the period of treatment, nature of injuries, I find it appropriate to award compensation for a period of 04 months towards loss of income during laid down period which would come to Rs. 32,560/- (8140 X 4). It is ordered accordingly.

¶39

For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellants.

¶40

S.	Heads		Compensation
No.
1.	(A)Annual Income of claimant: 8140 X 12 =97,680 (B)Addition towards future prospects @ 40% (97680 X 40% = 39072) (97680 + 39072 = 1,36,752) (C)Multiplier of 17 (136752 X 17 = 23,24,784/-) (D)Loss of earning capacity (23,24,784 X 15% = 3,48,717.6)	:	Rs. 3,48,717.6/-
2.	Loss of income during laid down period	:	(+) Rs. 32,560/-
3.	Future Medical Expenses	:	(+)Rs. 10,000/-
4.	Pains and sufferings	:	(+)Rs. 15,000/-
5.	Special diet	:	(+)Rs. 5,000/-
6.	Attendant	:	(+)Rs. 20,000/-

¶41

7

¶42

7.	Conveyance Expenses	: (+)Rs. 4,700/-
8.	Conveyance Expenses for family	: (+) Rs. 5,000/-
	members
9.	Medical Expenses	: (+)Rs. 71,345/-
	Total Compensation	: Rs. 5,12,322.60/-

¶43

Now, the Appellant/Claimant No. 1 is awarded total compensation of Rs. 5,12,322.60/- . The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶44

Certified copy as per rules.

¶45

Sd/-d/-- /-/--------/--/-

¶46

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶47

Dey

Sukhram Kowasi v. Diwakar Sona

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhram Kowasi v. Diwakar Sona

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

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

Mahendra Sodhi Vs Midun Krishna

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Anita Netam

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Vs Daya Bai Maghvani