New India Insurance Company Limited Vs Anubhav Singh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:31661

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 403 of 2019

¶6

1 - New India Insurance Company Limited (Correct Name As Assurance), Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, Division Office, T.P. Nagar Korba, Tahsil And District Korba (Chhattisgarh)

¶7

--- Appellants

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Anubhav Singh S/o Sunil Singh Rajput Aged About 6 Years (minor), through natural guardian Sunil Singh, S/o. Pancham Singh, aged about 32 years, R/o Village Hardi Bazar, Chowki Hardibazar, District Korba (Chhattisgarh).

¶10

2 - Madhuram Patel S/o Chaitram Patel Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Ghutku, Police Station Koni, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶11

3 - Manjeet Singh Gambhir S/o Late Shri Trilok Singh Gambhir R/o Near Gurudwara, Dayalband, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh).

¶12

--- Respondents

¶13

MAC No. 503 of 2019

¶14

1 - Anubhav Singh S/o Shri Sunil Singh Rajput Aged About 6 Years Minor Through His Natural Guardian - Father Sunil Singh, S/o Pancham Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village - Hardi Bazar, Chowki - Hardi Bazar, District - Korba Chhattisgarh. ---(Claimant).

¶15

---Appellants

¶16

Versus

¶17

1 - Madhuram Patel S/o Shri Chaitram Patel Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Ghutaku, Police Station Koni, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --(Driver)

¶18

2 - Manjit Singh Gambhir S/o Late Trilok Singh Gambhir R/o Near Gurudwara, Dayalband, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---(Owner)

¶19

3 - New India Insurance Company Limited Through The Divisional Manager, New India Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office, T.P. Nagar Korba, Tahsil And District - Korba Chhattisgarh. ---(Insurer).

¶20

--- Respondents

¶21

BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.16 11:18:10 +0530

¶22

For Appellant in (MAC 403/2019) and Res. No.3 in (MAC 503/19)	: Ms. Swati Agrawal on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate
For Appellant in (MAC 503/2019)	: Mr. P. Acharya, Advocate
& Res.1 in (MAC 403/2019)

¶23

2

¶24

For Res No. 2 & 3 (MAC 403/2019) : Ms. Deeksha Jaiswal on behalf of & Res No. 1 & 2 (MAC 503/2019) Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate

¶25

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶26

Order On Board

¶27

09/07/2025

¶28

Both the appeals are arising out of the same accident and award, therefore, they are being heard together and decided by this common order.

¶29

MAC No.403 of 2019 is filed by appellant/Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) challenging the award dated 19.11.2018, passed in Claim Case No.17/2016, passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District – Korba (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) challenging the quantum of compensation. Whereas, MAC No.503/2019 is filed by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal.

¶30

Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that a claim application U/s. 166 of the Act, 1988 was filed by father of master Anubhav Singh seeking total compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- as against the injury suffered by his son. It was pleaded in the application that on 29.10.2015, at about 3:00 PM, son of applicant, Anubhav Singh, was returning home to collect his tuition copy. While passing in front of the house of Gulshan Jaiswal on Deepka Road, Hardi Bazar, nonapplicant No.1, who was driving the offending vehicle trailer No.CG 10 C/8665, in a rash and negligent manner lost his control over the offending vehicle and dashed Anubhav Singh. As a result, Anubhav

¶31

3

¶32

Singh fell on to the ground and wheel of the offending vehicle ran over his leg, severely crushing it. He sustained grievous injuries, including a severely crushed left leg below the knee, serious trauma to the toes and chest , as well as multiple fractures and shattered bones. He was immediately taken to Primary Health Center, Hardibazar and thereafter he took treatment from Balaji Trauma & Superficiality and Indira Gandhi District Hospital, Korba.

¶33

Non-applicant No.1 and 2 remained ex-parte and no reply was filed on their behalf.

¶34

Non-applicant No. 3 filed its reply to the claim application, denying the allegations made therein. It was pleaded that the injured attempted to cross the road suddenly and negligently, resulting in a collision with the offending vehicle and the accident occurred due to the negligence of injured himself and he also contributed to the incident. Additionally, it was pleaded that at the time of the accident, Non-applicant No. 1 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, and the vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy

¶35

The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of pleadings and the evidence brought on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.6,87,765/- and fastened liability upon non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company to indemnify the insured.

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal on the ground

¶37

4

¶38

that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the claimant/injured as Rs.5,860/- not of claimant/injured but the income of his father, which is erroneous. For the purpose of computing the amount of compensation, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have considered only the income of claimant/injured and not of his father.

¶39

Learned counsel for the applicant/claimant submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation. Relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Baby Sakshi Greola Vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon & Anr., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692, he submits that where the minor suffered injuries resulting into permanent disability, income of the injured is to be assessed notionally taking note of the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority for the skilled labourer. In the case at hand the learned Claims Tribunal though has assessed the income considering the minimum wages fixed prevailing on the date of accident, however, the income is taken as fixed for unskilled labourer, which is erroneous. It is also contended that application of multiplier of 16 is also erroneous. The appropriate multiplier would be 18. He also submits that the amount of compensation awarded under other head is also on lower side.

¶40

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

¶41

It is not in dispute that master Anubhav Singh, aged about 6 years, S/o. Sunil Singh Rajput suffered motor accidental injuries over his left leg. He further suffered permanent disability and as per the disability certificate (Ex.P-224) issued by the District Hospital, Korba the

¶42

5

¶43

permanent disability of left lower limb has been assessed as 66.68% mentioning post trauma stiffness of knee deformed leg disfigurement.

¶44

The learned Claims Tribunal while considering the loss of earning capacity of the claimant has considered the disability certificate and held that claimant suffered 27% loss of earning capacity and accordingly computed the amount of compensation. I do not find any error with respect to percentage of the loss of earning capacity assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal, however, the learned Claims Tribunal while assessing the income for the purpose of computing the amount of compensation in para-26 has considered the income of father of claimants and further held that as the father of the claimant failed to prove his income, his income was assessed on notional basis as Rs.5,860/- as fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act for unskilled labour.

¶45

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Baby Sakshi Greola (supra) while considering its earlier decision has observed thus :-

¶46

“ 47. In this respect, it will be relevant to refer to paragraphs 22, 23 and 24 of Kajal (supra), which read thus:

¶47

“ Attendant charges

¶48

The attendant charges have been awarded by the High Court @ Rs. 2500 per month for 44 years, which works out to Rs. 13,20,000. Unfortunately, this system is not a proper system. Multiplier system is used to balance out various factors. When compensation is awarded in lump sum, various factors are taken into consideration. When compensation is paid in lump sum, this Court has always followed the multiplier system. The multiplier

¶49

6

¶50

system should be followed not only for determining the compensation on account of loss of income but also for determining the attendant charges, etc. This system was recognised by this Court in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami [Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K. Veluswami, AIR 1962 SC 1]. The multiplier system factors in the inflation rate, the rate of interest payable on the lump sum award, the longevity of the claimant, and also other issues such as the uncertainties of life. Out of all the various alternative methods, the multiplier method has been recognised as the most realistic and reasonable method. It ensures better justice between the parties and thus results in award of “just compensation” within the meaning of the Act.

¶51

It would be apposite at this stage to refer to the observation of Lord Reid in Taylor v. O'Connor [ Taylor v. O'Connor , [1971] A.C. 115 : [1970] 2 WLR 472 (HL)] : (AC p. 128)

¶52

“Damages to make good the loss of dependency over a period of years must be awarded as a lump sum and that sum is generally calculated by applying a multiplier to the amount of one year's dependency. That is a perfectly good method in the ordinary case but it conceals the fact that there are two quite separate matters involved — the present value of the series of future payments, and the discounting of that present value to allow for the fact that for one reason or another the person receiving the damages might never have enjoyed the whole of the benefit of the dependency. It is quite unnecessary in the ordinary case to deal with these matters separately. Judges and counsel have a wealth of experience which is an adequate guide to the selection of the multiplier and any expert evidence is rightly discouraged. But in a case where the facts are special I think that these matters must have separate consideration if even rough justice is

¶53

7

¶54

to be done and expert evidence may be valuable or even almost essential. The special factor in the present case is the incidence of income tax and, it may be, surtax.”

¶55

This Court has reaffirmed the multiplier method in various cases like MCD v. Subhagwanti [ MCD v. Subhagwanti , AIR 1966 SC 1750 : 1966 ACJ 57], U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra [ U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra , (1996) 4 SCC 362], Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande [ Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande , (2017) 3 SCC 351 : (2017) 2 SCC (Civ) 276 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 178]. This Court has also recognised that Schedule II of the Act can be used as a guide for the multiplier to be applied in each case. Keeping the claimant's age in mind, the multiplier in this case should be 18 as opposed to 44 taken by the High Court.”

¶56

[emphasis supplied]

¶57

Consistent with the approach adopted by this Court in the cases of Kajal (supra) and Master Ayush (supra), we deem it appropriate to enhance the compensation to be awarded under this head. The minimum wages paid to a skilled worker on a full- time basis in the State of Delhi at the time of the accident was Rs. 4,358/-. Keeping the appellant’s age in mind, the multiplier in the present case should be 18. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the appellant under this head shall be enhanced to Rs. 4,358 x 12 x 18 = Rs. 9,41,328/- and rounded it off to Rs.9,42,000/-.”

¶58

In the aforementioned decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the compensation is to be assessed keeping in mind the minimum wages fixed for skilled worker by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and further taking note of the

¶59

8

¶60

notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act fixing the minimum wage for skilled labour as Rs.6,302/per month, I find it appropriate to assess the income of claimant/injured as Rs.6,302/- for the purpose of computing the compensation, therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal assessing the minimum wages of the father of the claimant treating him to be unskilled labour is not sustainable and accordingly it is set-aside. Accordingly, the income of the injured is taken as Rs.6,302/- per month notionally.

¶61

Learned Claims tribunal has rightly added 40% of the assessed income towards the future prospects in the income assessed. As the income of the injured is assessed as Rs.6,302/- per month, hence, after addition of 40% towards future prospects, the total monthly income of the injured comes to Rs.8,822/- (6,302 + 2,520 = 8,822) and annual income of the injured works out to Rs.1,05,864/-.

¶62

Learned Claims Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 16 considering the age of the father of the claimant, which is erroneous. For the purpose of computing the amount of compensation in an injury case, the application of multiplier as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Master Ayush Vs. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited & Anr., reported in (2022) 7 SCC 738, would be 18. It is ordered accordingly. Accordingly, after applying the multiplier of 18, the total income of the injured comes to Rs.19,05,552/-

¶63

The loss of earning due to disability suffered by the appellant is held to the extent of 27%, therefore, compensation has to be calculated in that

¶64

9

¶65

proportion and accordingly total compensation under the head of loss of earning works out to Rs.5,14,499/-.

¶66

Learned counsel for the appellant could not able to point out that while awarding amount of compensation towards the medical expenses, learned Claims Tribunal has escaped consideration of any of the medical bills exhibited in proof of the same, therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award of compensation under the head of medical bills to the tune of Rs.2,34,970/-.

¶67

Learned Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs.4,500/- for conveyance expenses, Rs.3000/- towards special diet, Rs.20,000/towards pains and suffering.

¶68

Looking to the nature of injuries suffered by the claimants, the percentage of permanent disability as assessed by the District Hospital, Korba and disfigurement of his left leg, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pains and suffering, which is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. Looking to the nature of injuries suffered and the period of treatment, the amount of Rs.4,500/- awarded towards conveyance expenses is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The documents of treatment filed by claimant, which was marked and exhibited would show that claimant took treatment from 29.10.2015 till April, 2016, therefore, considering the age of claimant and period of treatment, nature of injuries I find it appropriate to enhance the amount of compensation awarded under the head of special diet from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.8,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation towards loss of amenities in life.

¶69

10

¶70

Claimant is a boy of tender age of 8 years, he has to live his entire life with the said disability and disfigurement sustained on his left leg, however, no amount of compensation is awarded, therefore, I find it appropriate to award Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities in life and marriage prospects. It is ordered accordingly.

¶71

In the facts of the case and taking support of the decision in case of Baby Sakshi Greola (Supra) it is ordered that there shall be application of multiplier of 18 for computing loss of income.

¶72

For the forgoing discussions the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellant required recomputation, which is as under :-

¶73

SN	Head		Amount(in Rs.).
1.	For loss of earning	:	5,14,499.00
2.	Medical expenses	:	2,34,970.00
3.	Pain and suffering	:	40,000.00
4.	Conveyance expenses	:	10,000.00
5.	For special diet	:	8,000.00
6.	Loss of amenities in life and marriageprospects	:	1,00,000.00
	Total Compensation	:	9,07,469.00

¶74

Accordingly, the MAC No.503/2019 is allowed in part. Now the applicant/claimant shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.9,07,469.00. Any amount paid to the appellant/claimant as compensation as per impugned 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 mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶75

11

¶76

For the above discussion MAC No.403 of 2019 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the appeal bearing MAC No.503 of 2019 is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent

¶77

indicated above.

¶78

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶79

Balram

New India Insurance Company Limited v. Anubhav Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

New India Insurance Company Limited v. Anubhav Singh

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

Smt. Ankumari Sahu Vs Mannulal Sahu

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Milan Bai Sahu

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Rani Vastrakar

Dev Singh Pradhan Vs Koushal Namdev

Branch Manager, Vs Smt. Deve (Mandavi)(Madavi)

Branch Manager New India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Malti Nag