Ganesh Ram Vs Mahboob Khan

1 - Mahboob Khan S/o Babu Khan Aged About 55 Years R/o Dubchhola, P.S. And Tahsil Khadgawan, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh (Vehicle Maruti Omni C.G.16 B/2870 Owner)

¶10

2 - Abu Hasim S/o Mahbub Khan Aged About 24 Years R/o Dubchhola, P.S. And Tahsil Khadgawan, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh (Vehicle Maruti Omni C.G.16 B/2870 Driver)

¶11

3 - Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh (Vehicle Maruti Omni C.G.16 B/2870 Insurer)

¶12

--- Respondents

¶13

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶14

For Appellant	: Ms. Shweta Bole, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate
For Respondents No.1	: None
and 2
For Respondent No.3	: Mr. G.V. Kutumba Rao, Advocate

¶15

2

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

¶17

Judgment on Board

¶18

22.09.2025

¶19

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 14.12.2017 passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.30/2014 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimant and awarded Rs.1,25,000/- as compensation.

¶20

2. Brief facts of the case, are that on 12.08.2013, at around 3:30 a.m., the claimant was riding pillion on a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-16-7757 from Bachra Podi to Haldibari. Near village Dubchola, Barkapara, the motorcycle was dashed by a white Maruti Omni car bearing registration No. CG16-B-2870 (for short, ‘offending vehicle’) driven by non-applicant No. 2, causing the claimant to fall and sustain a fracture to his right kneecap. He was treated at District Hospital, Baikunthpur, and suffered permanent disability and weakness.

¶21

3. The claimant filed a claim application before the learned Claims Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.98,40,000/- for medical expenses, mental agony, loss of income, permanent disability, attendant and travel expenses, and future treatment.

¶22

3

¶23

4. In their joint reply, non-applicants No. 1 and 2 denied all facts except those admitted, contending that the accident occurred due to the claimant/applicant’s negligence while riding the motorcycle and that the claimed compensation was excessive.

¶24

5. Respondent No. 3, the insurance company, also denied liability, asserting that the driver of the vehicle lacked a valid license at the time of the accident and, alternatively, that the claimant/applicant’s own negligence caused the fall and injuries.

¶25

6. The learned Claims Tribunal after appreciating the claim application as well as evidence on record in the claim case, has awarded a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- to the claimant with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization.

¶26

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal has committed error of law while disbelieving the permanent disability sustained by the claimant because as a result of the accident, the appellant sustained grievous injuries to his right leg, including multiple fractures below the knee. The appellant was admitted to the hospital for a prolonged period and, due to the injuries sustained, has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 52%. The Medical Board has issued a disability certificate (Exhibit A/6), and the concerned doctor from the Medical Board, who was examined during proceedings, has categorically stated that he personally examined the appellant and, upon such

¶27

4

¶28

examination, issued the said disability certificate. It is argued that the Claims Tribunal has awarded a meager compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-, which is not in accordance with law. The appellant is unable to perform routine daily work. He is an agriculturist; however, due to the injuries sustained, he is unable to carry out agricultural operations. The injuries are functional in nature and, therefore, the same should have been appropriately considered by the Claims Tribunal, which, according to the appellant, was not done.

¶29

8. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon a photograph of the appellant, showing his permanent disability. The photograph demonstrates that his right leg has been severely affected, has shortened, and the appellant is constrained to take assistance of a “ Besakhi ” (supporting stick). As such, the appeal be allowed and compensation be enhanced suitably. She has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hare Krushna Mahanta v. Himadari Sahu and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 262 to buttress her submissions.

¶30

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company submitted that the Claims Tribunal had duly considered all relevant aspects of the matter, including the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the appellant, the medical evidence on record, and the circumstances of the

¶31

5

¶32

accident. It is contended that the Claims Tribunal had exercised its discretion appropriately in arriving at the compensation awarded, taking into account factors such as the degree of disability, loss of earning capacity, and the claimant’s personal and professional circumstances. He argued that the compensation granted was reasonable and proportionate in light of the evidence placed before the Tribunal, and that there was no justification for enhancement.

¶33

10. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length, considered their submissions, and perused the entire record, including the medical documents, disability certificate, and other evidence filed before the Claims Tribunal as also before this Court.

¶34

11. The issue for determination is whether the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal adequately reflects the permanent disability suffered by the appellant and the resulting loss of earning capacity, or whether it requires enhancement in the light of the evidence.

¶35

12. In the matter of Hare Krushna Mahanta (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows :

¶36

“9. …...It is imperative for this Court, however, to reiterate that despite such consent, the objective when granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is to ensure just and fair compensation

¶37

6

¶38

is paid to the aggrieved party. This came to be reiterated by this Court recently in Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto, (2023) 1 SCC 204, wherein it was observed:

¶39

“17. The Tribunal/Court ought to award "just" compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the claim petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount.”

¶40

13. On a careful perusal of the record, it is evident that the appellant has suffered permanent functional disability as a direct consequence of the accident. The evidence on record, including the medical documents and the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board (Exhibit A/6), establishes that the appellant has sustained 52% permanent disability. The Claims Tribunal, while considering the claim, appears to have given insufficient weight to this critical aspect.

¶41

14. Furthermore, the photograph produced before this Court, and subsequently filed along with the covering memo, provides visual confirmation that the appellant’s right leg has been severely affected. The photograph clearly demonstrates deformity, shortening of the limb, and functional impairment, which necessitates the appellant’s reliance on a “ Besakhi ” (supporting stick) for mobility. Such functional limitations have a direct impact

¶42

7

¶43

on the appellant’s ability to perform daily routine activities, continue his occupation as an agriculturist, and engage in livelihood-generating work.

¶44

15. It is, therefore, apparent that the Claims Tribunal, in passing the award, failed to appropriately consider the functional nature and severity of the appellant’s permanent disability. The inadequacy of the award becomes apparent when the permanent and disabling nature of the injuries, coupled with their impact on the appellant’s earning capacity and daily life, are taken into account.

¶45

16. Considering the foregoing aspects, and in view of the substantial permanent functional disability suffered by the appellant, this Court is of the considered view that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal falls short of the just and fair amount required to adequately address the losses and hardships endured by the appellant. Consequently, the compensation awarded is liable to be enhanced to reflect the true extent of the appellant’s injuries, functional limitations, and consequent financial and personal hardships, which is as follows :

¶46

Sl. No.	Head	Calculation	Awarded amount
1.	Income of deceased @ Rs.4,943/- per month as per Minimum Wages Act, 1948 in the year 2013	Rs.59,316/- per annum
2.	25% of (1) above to be added as future prospects	59,316 + 14,829 = Rs.74,145/-

¶47

8

¶48

3.	Compensation after multiplier of 14 applied	74,145 x 14 = Rs.10,38,030/-
4.	Loss of income to the extent of 52%	10,38,030 x 52%	Rs.5,39,776/-
5.	Medical Expenses (as awarded by Claims Tribunal)	Rs.10,000/-	Rs.10,000/-
6.	Pain and suffering		Rs.1,00,000/-
7.	Attendant Charges		Rs.50,000/-
8.	Special Diet and Transportation		Rs.40,000/-
9.	Loss of amenities		Rs.1,00,000/-
10.	Loss of income of two months during the period of treatment	4,943 x 2	Rs.9,886/-
		Total Compensation Awarded	Rs.8,49,662/-

¶49

17. In view of the above, the claimant is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.8,49,662/-. After deducting Rs.1,25,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.7,24,662/-.

¶50

18. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant shall be entitled to Rs.7,24,662/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 8% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain unchanged.

¶51

19. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation to the claimant as modified by this Court within a

¶52

9

¶53

period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment.

¶54

20. The record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent back forthwith, along with all connected papers, to give effect to the directions issued by this Court regarding the enhanced compensation.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶57

Yogesh

Ganesh Ram v. Mahboob Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Ram v. Mahboob Khan

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

Chirag Sharma Vs Mahendra Singh

Suhag Bati Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Nelendri Panigrahi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohd. Ameen Khan Vs Dashrath Korram

Shailesh Mounas Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gajanand Alias Gajanan Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh