Vijay Kumar Netam Vs Mohd. Sageer Rizvi

¶1

1 / 6

¶2

2025:CGHC:38784

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGRH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 415 of 2020

¶6

Vijay Kumar Netam S/o Late Laxman Netam Aged About 42 Years Caste Gond, Resident of Village Kangoli, Police Station Parpa, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.

¶7

--- Appellant/ Claimant

¶8

versus

¶9

Mohd. Sageer Rizvi S/o Shri Jamaluddin Caste Muslim, Resident of Ramsagarpara, Post Office Ward, Dhamtari, Police Station City Kotwali, Dhamtari, Police Station City ( Driver of Maruti Swift Desire Car No. C.G. - 04/ HC- 8045)

¶10

Praveen Kumar Gupta S/o Late Bhola Prasad Gupta Resident of House No. 15, Tower Phase - 4, Heerapur, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Owner of Maruti Swift Desire Car No. C.G. - 04/HC – 8045)]

¶11

The Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited , Branch Office Jagdalpur , District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer of Maruti Swift Desire Car No. C.G. - 04/ HC 8045).

¶12

--- Respondents

¶13

____________________________________________________________ For Appellant-Claimant : Mr. Anand Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶15

05/08/2025

¶16

Judgment On Board

¶17

PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA

¶18

Challenge in this appeal is to the impugned award dated 16.01.2020 passed by Learned Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Cases No. 136/17, whereby Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section

¶19

2 / 6

¶20

166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) by the applicant in part and awarded ₹ 55,400 (50% of the total award) as total compensation.

¶21

Brief facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 28.06.2014, appellant/ applicant was traveling on Hyundai Car bearing number CG 17 C 9100 and returning from Raipur to Jagdalpur. On the way, at about 06:15 P.M., when he reached near Village Bhurvend on National Highway 130, Non-Applicant No. 1 while driving his vehicle Maruti Swift Desire car bearing number CG04 HC 8045 (henceforth “offending car”) rashly and negligently dashed the car driven by applicant and caused accident. In the accident, applicant suffered grievous injuries over his person, resulting in permanent disability.

¶22

Applicant-claimant filed application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-, pleading therein that on the date of accident he was aged about 42 years physically fit person, was working as driver and earning Rs. 9,000 per month.

¶23

Pleadings made in the claim application was resisted by the Non-Applicant No. 1 driver of offending car pleading therein that accident did not occur due to negligence on his part. It is stated that the offending car was insured with non-applicant No. 3, thus liability, if any, of paying compensation would be upon non-applicant No. 3.

¶24

Non-applicant No. 2, did not appear before the Claims Tribunal, nor file any reply, he was proceeded ex parte .

¶25

Non-applicant No. 3, insurer of offending car in its reply repelled the pleadings made in the claim application. It is further pleaded that both the vehicles were being driven by its driver without there being any valid and effective driving license as such, the vehicles were being driven in breach of conditions of insurance policy and therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation.

¶26

3 / 6

¶27

Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that applicant -Vijay Kumar Netam suffered grievous injuries resulting in permanent disability in the accident with involvement of offending car driven by non-applicant No. 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy and non-joinder of party were not found to be proved. Tribunal calculated the amount of compensation of ₹ 1,10,691 and awarded ₹ 55,400/- as total compensation, holding him 50% contributory negligent in accident, with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization and fastened liability to satisfy the award upon non-applicant No. 3.

¶28

Learned counsel for appellant-claimant submits that the Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding compensation under the head of future prospects even though has awarded compensation under the head of loss of income due to permanent disability and assessing loss of earning capacity as 8.5%. He submits that according to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sidram vs. The Divisional Manager, United Insurance Co. Ltd.

¶29

reported in ( 2023) 3 SCC 439 in case of permanent disability, there will be addition of compensation towards future prospects also. He also contended that the Claims Tribunal awarded meager sum of compensation under other heads like pain and suffering, attendant, special diet and conveyance.

¶30

Learned counsel for respective respondents would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that the Claims Tribunal in the facts of the case has awarded just compensation which does not call for any interference.

¶31

So far as the first ground raised by learned counsel for appellant that while awarding compensation towards loss of income due to permanent disability Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards future prospects is concerned, perusal of record would show that the claimant has filed Disability Certificate as Ext. A-9, wherein Locomotor disability of appellant-claimant is

¶32

4 / 6

¶33

assessed as 25% due to permanent physical disability in right lower limb. Doctor is also examined to prove the Disability Certificate as AW-2. In his evidence, it is stated that Disability Certificate issued for 25% is with respect to right lower limb/ right leg only and for the whole body it is only 8.5%. In cross-examination, he also admitted that the disability suffered by claimant will not be cured even after taking physiotherapy.

¶34

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sidram (supra) while considering the award of compensation towards future prospects in case of permanent disability has observed thus:

¶35

" 3 1 . It is now a well settled position of law that even in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor-accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future prospects as well. We have come across many orders of different tribunals and unfortunately affirmed by different High Courts, taking the view that the claimant is not entitled to compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. That is not a correct position of law. There is no justification to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading is illogical because it denies altogether the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in accident cases - and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim's death."

¶36

Considering entirety of the facts of the case, evidence available on record

¶37

and also the above-referred decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered view that the Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding compensation towards future prospects. As on the date of accident, injured was above 40 years of age (ie., 42 years) and therefore there shall be addition of 25% of the assessed income towards future prospects. It is ordered accordingly.

¶38

5 / 6

¶39

Claims Tribunal has awarded only ₹ 5,000 towards pain and sufferings, considering the fact that the claimant suffered injury over his right leg, period of treatment and also that he suffered permanent disability, which will remain for his entire life, I find it appropriate to enhance the compensation towards pain and suffering from ₹ 5,000 to ₹ 15,000. It is ordered accordingly. Compensation awarded under the head of attendant and the special diet are also enhanced to ₹ 10,000 each from ₹ 5,000. Award of compensation under the head of conveyance expenses appears to be just and proper which does not call for any interference.

¶40

For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellant-claimant requires recomputation, which is as under.

¶41

Particulars	Compensation
A. Annual Loss of income = ₹ 70,920/- (₹5910x12) (maintained)	₹ 1,05,494/-
B. Addition towards loss of future prospects @ 25% (₹ 70,920 + 25% of ₹ 70,920= ₹ 88,650)
C. Multiplier of 14
D. (₹ 88,650 x 14 = ₹ 12,41,100)
E. 8.5% loss of earning due to permanent disability (₹ 12,41,100 x 8.5% = ₹ 1,05,494)
Medical Expenses (maintained)	₹ 11,296/-
Pain and sufferings	₹ 15,000/-
Special diet	₹ 10,000/-
Attendant cost	₹ 10,000/-
Conveyance expenses	₹ 5,000/-
Total	₹ 1,56,790/-

¶42

As the Claims Tribunal held appellant to be contributory negligent to the extent of 50% and thereby awarded 50% of the calculated amount, therefore, appellant-claimant shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 78,395 (50% of ₹ 1,56,790) instead of ₹ 55,400 as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization.

¶43

6 / 6

¶44