Rahul @ Rishabh Vs Pradip

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:15882

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 347 of 2020

¶6

1 - Rahul @ Rishabh S/o Jagdish Sonwani (Panika) Aged About 24 Years R/oBehind Of Deshi Sharab Bhatthi, Dayalband Bilaspur, Police Station- City Kotwali, District- Bilaspur, C.G., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

1 - Pradip S/o Munnalal Banwasi Aged About 28 Years R/o- Ward No.-15, Banwasi Mohalla, Mehadwani Road, Shahpura, District- Dindauri, C.G.(Driver Of The Vehicle Bus No. M.P. 20-Pa 0943), Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Om Prakash S/o B. L. Jaiswal R/o - L.I.G. 42, Govind Bhawan Colony, Police Station- Civil Line, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, C.G. (Owner Of The Vehicle Bus No. M.P. 20-P A 0943), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through- Divisional Manager, Division Office- In Front Of Rajiv Plaza, Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, Tahsil And DistrictBilaspur, C.G. (Owner Of The Vehicle Bus No. M.P. 20-P A 0943), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶14

Order On Board

¶15

04/04/2025

¶16

SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY

¶17

This appeal is filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 15.11.2019 passed by the 1st Upper Motor Accident

¶18

2

¶19

Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 376/2017.

¶20

Facts of the case in brief are that, on 22.07.2016, when the appellant along with his friend Kabirdas Khande was traveling on his motorcycle and going towards Village Karanjiya from Village Rusa, at that time when they reached near Village Rusa turn at Village Amaldih, the offending bus bearing registration no. MP 20 PA 0943 driven by the Respondent No. 1 dashed the appellant’s vehicle and caused accident. In the said accident, appellant and Kabirdas Khande suffered serious injuries, they were taken to the local Community Health Centre. Subsequent to the accident, a crime was registered against the Respondent No. 1 bearing Crime No. 193/2016 at P.S. Karanjiya, District – Dindori for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶21

Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has ordered a meagre sum as amount of compensation. The learned Claims Tribunal has not considered the permanent disability suffered by the appellant to the extent of 40%, however, contrary to the document (Ex. P/6), the learned Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that the appellant suffered Temporary Disability Certificate only on the basis of the evidence of Dr. Mini Morwi (AW-2), Member of Medical Board. That, the amount of compensation awarded on other heads is also on the lower side in the facts of the case looking to the date of accident, nature of injuries suffered and the part of the body which suffered disability. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 15,000/- towards the transportation, special died and attendant overlooking the fact that after accident, the appellant was taken to Community Health Centre, Karanjiya and thereafter, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Government Hospital, Jabalpur.

¶22

3

¶23

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 opposes the submission made by the counsel for the appellant and would submit that the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case is just and proper. He submits that the learned Claims Tribunal considering the evidence of Dr. Mini Morvi (AW-2) had rightly came to the conclusion that the nature of disability suffered by the appellant is temporary and not permanent. Accordingly, computed the amount of compensation towards the loss of income for a period of 03 years, amount of compensation on other heads considering the nature of injury, period of treatment and the place of treatment has awarded just amount of compensation. Hence, the impugned award does not call for any interference.

¶24

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

¶25

So far as the submission of the counsel for the appellant with respect to the temporary disability as held by the learned Claims Tribunal is concerned, perusal of the document Ex. P-6 which is filed in support of the proof of the disability, issued by the Medical Board, it is appearing that in the disability certificate, there is no mention/endorsement that the nature of disability is temporary. In the aforementioned facts of the case, merely on the basis of the evidence of Dr. Mini Morvi (AW-2), learned Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that the appellant suffered temporary disability.

¶26

Perusal of the deposition of Dr. Mini Morvi (AW-2) it is appearing that in para 2 of the deposition, in front of the words "स्थायी", "अ" has been subsequently added and the same is not in the writing of the same person who has recorded the deposition. There is no endorsement of

¶27

4

¶28

presiding officer of Tribunal. Considering the nature of evidence and the disability certificate (Ex. P/6) which was considered by the Claims Tribunal to consider the disability as also, looking to the nature of injury, fracture of femur bone and fracture of knee, rod was implanted and the facts and circumstances of the case as also, the disability certificate (Ex. P/6) where it does not mention that the disability certificate assessed by the medical board to be temporary in nature, in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal erred in recording a finding that the appellant suffered temporary disability and not permanent disability which is not sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly, it is set-aside.

¶29

This Court came to the conclusion that the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board was of permanent disability, however, this Court is of the view that the disability on part of the body will not lead to the loss of income with the same ratio as of the disability mentioned in the certificate. It is to be assessed on case to case basis considering the nature of employment with which, the injured was engaged prior to the accident. In the case at hand, though there is a pleading that the appellant was engaged and doing the work as Carpenter. However, there is no specific proof brought on record by the appellant by placing cogent and reliable piece of evidence.

¶30

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar and another reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 has again considered the assessment with regard to award of compensation in personal injury case resulting in permanent disability and held thus:

¶31

“13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain

¶32

5

¶33

what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.

¶34

For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred per cent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of “loss of future earnings”, if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be

¶35

6

¶36

continued in service, but may not be found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced earning capacity.

¶37

It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may.”

¶38

In the aforementioned facts of the case, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to prove his employment as Carpenter and has treated the appellant to be doing the work of Labourer. Even if, the appellant is to be treated as Labourer, it cannot be overlooked that he has suffered fracture of femur bone as also, the fracture on the knee of the same leg. The work of Labourer is to do all kind of work including lifting of weight/heavy goods, he needs to move from one place to another continuously and considering the nature of work, the appellant will not be in a position to do the work with the same efficiency with the disability suffered by him and that too, two fracture injures on the same leg, one at femur bone and another at knee and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, it may be cause 20% loss of income for his entire life and therefore, the loss of income of the appellant is assessed by this Court as 20%. The compensation towards the pains and sufferings is awarded as Rs.

¶39

7

¶40

50,000/- which appears to be just and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case.

¶41

11.The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- under the head of conveyance, special diet and attendant which also does not call for any interference. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards the loss of amenities in life. The appellant on the date of accident was only aged about 24 years, the nature of injury with which the appellant suffered will affect his married life as also, his social life. He will not be able to walk with the same speed and capacity and move like an ordinary man and not able to perform all the nature of work like an ordinary man. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, he is entitled for Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of amenities in life.

¶42

In the facts of the case and discussions as observed, I find appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation.

¶43

The income of the appellant is assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal based on the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 notified by the competent authority from the period from 01.04.2016 to 30.09.2016 as Rs. 6107/- treating the appellant to be Labourer which is correctly assessed and accordingly, this Court also considered to accept the income of the appellant as Rs. 6107/-.

¶44

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandramani Nanda Vs. Sarat Chandra Swain & Anr. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2859 while considering the award of compensation towards the future prospects in the case of permanent disability has held that the claimant who suffer the permanent disability is also entitled for the loss of future prospects and held thus:-

¶45

8

¶46

“ 14.3 However, the Tribunal and the High Court both have failed to consider the fact that the appellant is also entitled for enhancement on account of future prospects. Hence, in line with the law laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi10, given the age of appellant was 32 years at the time of accident, he is entitled to 40% future prospects.“

¶47

In view of the aforementioned decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that where the injured/claimant suffered permanent disability, there should be addition of loss of future prospects based on the age of the deceased as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 .

¶48

In the case at hand, the age of the deceased is 24 years and therefore, there shall enhancement of 40% towards the loss of future prospects. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 8550/- (6107+2443) and the yearly income of the deceased would come to Rs. 102600/- (8550X12). The appellant is aged about 24 years and therefore, the multiplier of 18 as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 would be applicable, therefore, the total income of the deceased would come to Rs. 1846800/- (102600X18). As this Court has assessed the loss of earning of the appellant to the extent of 20% and therefore, the 20% of the loss of income would come to Rs. 369360/- (20% of 1846800 ) of Apart from the loss of income of Rs. 369360/-, the appellant would also

¶49

9

¶50

be entitled for Rs. 50,000 towards mental pain and agony and Rs. 15,000 towards the conveyance, special diet and attendant and Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of amenities in life.

¶51

16.Now, the appellant/claimant will be entitled for the total amount of compensation which is as under:-

¶52

Rs. 4,64,360/- (369360 + 50,000 + 15,000 + 30,000)

¶53

This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶54

Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellant as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above.

¶55

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above.

¶56

Certified copy as per rules.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶59

Dey

Rahul @ Rishabh v. Pradip

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul @ Rishabh v. Pradip

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

Gopal Singh Koumarya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt Fulo Bai Nayak Vs Rathram Paikra

Resham Bai Nayak Vs Rathram Paikra

Sanjay Kumar Sahu Vs Narmada Prasad

Smt. Naina Ambade Vs Devendra Kumar Ambade

Mukesh Yadav Vs Birendra Verma