Mukesh Yadav Vs Birendra Verma

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:15881

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 421 of 2020

¶6

1 - Mukesh Yadav S/o Shri Nammu Ram Yadav Aged About 21 Years R/o Bhatapara Nagpura, Police Station - Pulgaon, District Durg Chhattisgarh (Claimant)

¶7

--- Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Birendra Verma S/o Punuram Verma Aged About 30 Years R/o Thakurpara Nawagaon , Purda , Tahsil - Bori , District - Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - Vijay Yadav S/o Paras Yadav Aged About 26 Years R/o Bhatapara, Nagpura , Police Station - Pulgaon, Tahsil And District - Durg Chhattisgarh. (Owner)

¶11

3 - The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through - Branch Manager, Branch Office, Parakh Complex, Santrabadi, Near Ujala Bhawan, District - Durg Chhattisgarh.(Insurer).

¶12

--- Respondent(s)

¶13

For Appellant : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : None present though served. For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶15

Order On Board

¶16

04/04/2025

¶17

Claimant/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident

¶18

Digitally signed by BALRAM BALRAM PRASAD PRASAD DEWANGAN DEWANGAN Date: 2025.04.09 14:27:29 +0530

¶19

2

¶20

Claims Tribunal, Durg, District – Durg (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 17.10.2019 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.540/2018 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.9,41,700/- as compensation in an injury case.

¶21

Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 02.12.2017 at about 7 PM, appellant was travelling on motor cycle bearing registration No.C.G.-07/BJ/4298 as pillion rider with respondent No.1 and was going to Nagpura from Durg after completing his work. When they reached near entry gate of village Kotani, respondent No.1 drove the said motor cycle in rash and negligent manner, dashed the motor cycle against the entry gate, as a consequence of which, the appellant suffered grievous injuries on his left leg and suffered fracture above knee. He was admitted in the District Hospital, Durg from 02.12.2017 to 03.12.2017 thereafter, he was admitted at Mahima Hospital, Kadambari Nagar, Durg for proper treatment, where his left leg was amputated above the knee.

¶22

Appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.49,00,000/- pleading therein that at the time of accident, he was aged about 21 years, used to work as Mason and was earning Rs.12,900/- per month. It was pleaded that due to the accident, he suffered 80% permanent disability and unable to perform his work. Claimant had also sought compensation under other heads as are available to him like medical expenses, special diet, future medical expenses, pain and sufferings etc.

¶23

Non-applicant Nos.1 & 2 submitted reply and resisted the claim. It was denied that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent

¶24

3

¶25

driving of respondent No.1. It was pleaded that on the date of incident, appellant was in heavily intoxicated condition due to which he fell down from the motor cycle. The accident was a result of appellant’s own negligence, hence, he is not entitled to get any compensation from the respondents. It was pleaded that claim petition was filed, exaggerating the amount of compensation. On the date of incident respondent No.1 was having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle, it was duly insured with respondent No.3 and there was no breach of policy condition. In case, appellant is entitled for compensation, then respondent No.3 will be liable to pay the compensation.

¶26

Non-applicant No.3-Insurer of offending vehicle, submitted reply to claim application denying the pleadings made therein. At the time of accident, the appellant was driving the motor cycle rashly and negligently without having any valid licence, there was breach of condition of insurance policy, hence, insurance company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation.

¶27

Upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, learned Claims Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1, due to which the appellant suffered injuries. Breach of Policy condition was not found to be proved. Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.9,41,700/- along with interest @ 6% per annum, fastened liability upon non-applicant No.3Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation.

¶28

4

¶29

Learned counsel for appellant submits that Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation. It is submitted that learned Claims Tribunal failed to consider the evidence brought on record regarding income of appellant. It is contended that due to the accident, left leg of the appellant was amputated above the knee and he suffered 80% permanent disablement, however, the learned Claims Tribunal failed to consider this fact and assessed the disability of the appellant as 50% for computing the amount of compensation. The learned Claims Tribunal has also failed to award any amount towards future prospects to the appellant. The learned Claims Tribunal has also failed to award suitable and proper compensation towards pain and suffering and other heads as claimed by the appellant. He prays that amount of compensation be suitably enhanced.

¶30

Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation on each and every head. It is submitted that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is on proper appreciation of facts and evidence brought on record by the respective parties, which does not call for any interference.

¶31

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

¶32

It is undisputed that as a result of the incident, appellant sustained severe injuries to his left leg, leading to the amputation of his left leg above knee. It is also undisputed that the appellant has suffered 80% permanent disability due to the accident.

¶33

5

¶34

So far as the employment and income of the appellant, the learned Claims Tribunal disbelieved the claim that he was working as Mason and earning Rs.450/- per day on the ground that claimant failed to prove the same and accordingly fixed income as Rs.8450/- based on the minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority under Minimum Wages Act at the relevant period i.e. 01.10.2017 to 31.03.2018 as Rs.8,450/-. In absence of admissible piece of evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal justified in disbelieving the pleading made in the application that appellant was earning Rs.450/- per day by working as mason and has rightly recorded a finding that the appellant can be treated to be a labourer for the purpose of calculating his income and for computing the amount of compensation. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal with respect to the income of the appellant based on the minimum wages as fixed by the Competent Authority at the relevant point of time to be of Rs.8450/- PM, is hereby affirmed.

¶35

Perusal of the impugned award would show that any amount towards future prospects has not been added by the Claims Tribunal. As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , in case where victim of road accident is below 40 years of age on the date of accident, 40% of assessed income is to be added towards future prospects. In the case at hand, at the time of incident, the injured was 21 years of age, hence, the income is required to be enhanced by 40% towards future prospects, which comes to Rs.3,380/- and thus the total monthly income of the injured comes to

¶36

6

¶37

Rs.11,830/- and annual income of the injured works out to Rs.1,41,960/-.

¶38

So far as the disability of the appellant is concerned, the learned Claims Tribunal overlooking the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of occupation of the appellant to be labourer as held by Tribunal and further the fact of amputation of his left leg above the knee has held the functional disability/loss of income of the appellant only to the extent of 50%. A person who suffers from permanent disability, particularly one who had a leg amputated above the knee, is highly unlikely to be able to engage in manual labour. The physical limitations resulting from such a disability would severely hinder the individual’s ability to perform tasks that require mobility and physical strength. Therefore, it is improbable that the individual could work even at 50% of the capacity as assessed by the Claims Tribunal.

¶39

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sanjay Rajpoot Vs. Ram Singh , reported in LAW (SC) 2025 2 34 has considered the loss of income of a self employed person running and managing his own business suffered with the amputation of one leg above knee and assessed the functional disability of the appellant as 90% and held as under :-

¶40

“10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Respondent No.3 – the insurer has not entered appearance. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and High Court on the functional disability suffered by him and also the determination of his age. The Claimant-Appellant is not salaried, but is selfemployed running and managing his own business. For

¶41

7

¶42

the Appellant to be able to effectively run his business, he is definitely required to move around. This has been hampered significantly by his amputation, which proves that the functional disability of the Appellant will severely impact his earning capacity. Therefore, the correct view would be to assess the disability of the ClaimantAppellant as 90%.”

¶43

Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and also the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court I am of the view that functional disability resulting into loss of income to the appellant who has been held to be labourer for the purpose of earning his livelihood, would be 80%. It is ordered accordingly.

¶44

There is no dispute with respect to the multiplier of 17 applied by the learned Claims Tribunal.

¶45

Accordingly, the annual income of the injured is taken as Rs.1,41,960/-. After applying multiplier of 17, the total income of the injured comes to Rs.24,13,320/-. As the loss of income due to disability suffered by the appellant is held as 80%, the compensation has to be calculated by apportioning to 80% disability and accordingly total compensation under the head of loss earning capacity works out to Rs.19,30,656/-. Thus amount under the head of loss of income is enhanced to Rs.19,30,656/-. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering and mental agony, which looking to the facts and circumstances of the case is required to be enhanced from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.30,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. The amount awarded towards attendant, special diet, expenses towards treatment does not call for interference. Since this

¶46

8

¶47

Court has determined the appellant's functional disability to the extent of 80%, the amount of Rs. 16,900/- awarded towards loss of income during the treatment is no longer required to be granted.

¶48

Appellant was 21 years of age on the date of accident. His one of the leg was amputated above knee due to motor accidental injuries. His marriage prospects will adversely be affected due to the amputated leg. He cannot enjoy his life and social life as an ordinary person and hence, he is also entitled to a compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities for rest of his life.

¶49

On the basis of above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :-

¶50

S.N.	Head		Amount.
1.	Loss of income	: Rs.1	9,30,656.00
2.	For pain and suffering	: Rs.	30,000.00 (enhanced)
3.	For attendant	: Rs.	5,000.00 (maintained)
4.	For special diet	: Rs.	5,000.00 (maintained)
5.	For treatment	: Rs.	37,900.00 (maintained)
6.	Loss of amenities in life	: Rs.	50,000.00
	Total Compensation	: Rs.2	0,58,556.00

¶51

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.20,58,556.00. Any amount paid to

¶52

the appellant as compensation as per award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization.

¶53

9

¶54

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

¶55

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶56

Balram

Mukesh Yadav v. Birendra Verma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Yadav v. Birendra Verma

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

Rahul @ Rishabh Vs Pradip