Gufran Khan @ Pappu Khan Vs Devendra Dorle

1 - Devendra Dorle S/o Laxman Rao Dorle Aged About 23 Years R/o Lakhe Nagar, Sudhir Mukharjee Ward P.S. Purani Basti, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---(Driver Of Offending Vegan R Number CG - 04, H.B. - 0792)

¶10

2 - Shankar Nath S/o Late Bhanwar Nath Aged About 28 Years R/o Santoshi Nagar, Tikarapara, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, (Owner Of Offending Vegan R Number CG - 04, H.B. - 0792)

¶11

3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No. 2, Behind Jeevan Bima Office, Jeevan Bima Marg, Pandari, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Vegan R Number CG - 04, H.B. - 0792)

¶12

.. . Respondent(s)

¶13

For Appellant (s) : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shikhar Sharma Advocate For Resp .No. 1 : Mr. Suresh Tandon, Advocate For Resp. No. 2 : None appears though served For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate

¶14

_______________________________________________________

¶15

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶16

Judgment On Board

¶17

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.07.15 10:51:27 +0530

¶18

03/07/2025

¶19

Heard on IA No.1 which is an application for condonation of delay of

¶20

397 days in filing the appeal.

¶21

-2-

¶22

On due consideration of the grounds raised in the application and the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, application is allowed. Delay of 397 days in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned.

¶23

With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case is heard finally at the admission stage.

¶24

This is the claimants’ appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Third Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal of the First Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) vide award dated 07.10.2017 passed in Motor Accidents Claim Case No.35 of 2012.

¶25

Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellant/claimant filed an application under Sections 166, 140 of the Act of 1988 before the learned Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) pleading therein that on 03/11/2009 at 08:00 am on Moti Nagar, Boria Road under PS Tikrapara, Raipur driver of Wagon- R No. CG-04 HB0792, while driving the vehicle carelessly and negligently, dashed the applicant/claimant from behind and caused an accident. As a result of the accident, the applicant suffered severe physical injuries on both his legs and waist. The applicant's spinal cord was severely damaged and broken. As a result of the said accident, lower part of the applicant's waist become completely motionless and insensitive. Due to the severe and fatal injuries sustained by the applicant, he has become permanently disabled. On the date of accident, he was a healthy 27year-old man who was working as Chef at Maa Santoshi Bhog Bhandar, Santoshi Nagar, Raipur at a salary of Rs 6000/- per month

¶26

-3-

¶27

with which he was maintaining himself and his family. The applicant/claimant prayed for compensation of Rs. 48,16,000/- from the non-applicants due to the fatal injuries sustained in the said accident.

¶28

Non applicant No.1 in his written statement opposed the claim application and stated that no accident has been caused by nonapplicant No. 1.

¶29

Non -applicant No.2 in his written statement pleaded that as on the date of accident offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3 therefore, if the claim application is accepted, then liability to pay amount of compensation will be of non-applicant No.3 .

¶30

Non-applicant No. 3 in its written statement pleaded that the applicant has filed the said claim by concealing the real facts. The circumstances that caused the accident were created by the applicant himself. The applicant has not suffered any physical injuries from the offending vehicle nor has he become disabled due to these injuries. Alleging that the driver of the vehicle Wagon -R No. CG 04 HB 0792 was driving the vehicle without a valid and effective license in violation of conditions of insurance policy, therefore, insurance company be exonerated from its liability to pay amount of compensation.

¶31

Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which appellant/claimant suffered fatal injuries. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found proved, held non-applicants liable to pay the amount of compensation. Assessing

¶32

-4-

¶33

income of the appellant/claimant as Rs.4000/- per month, calculated amount of compensation under different heads, awarded total compensation of Rs.11,77,232/-.

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing income of claimant as Rs.4,000/- per month only overlooking the pleadings made in the claim application that on the date of accident appellant was working as Chef in Santoshi Bhog Bhandar and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. To prove income, claimant had submitted certificate issued by the Proprietor of Santoshi Bhog Bhandar which was not considered erroneously and considering the fact that due to motor accidental injuries suffered on spinal bone of applicant lower limb is not responding and therefore doctor has issued disability certificate of 50%. Claims Tribunal has also assessed loss of income of 50,000/- only overlooking the occupation of claimant and has not awarded compensation under head of future prospects. Amount of compensation awarded under head is also on lower side hence amount of compensation be suitably enhanced.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/Insurance Company opposing the submission of learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Tribunal has awarded compensation under almost all heads. Compensation awarded under head of future medical treatment is upon considering medical documents available on record as also physical condition of claimant. Claimant has failed to prove need of the compensation under head of future prospect by producing admissible documentary evidence . Amount of compensation computed is just and proper hence it does not call for any interference.

¶36

-5-

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 also supports the award and adopted the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.3.

¶38

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

¶39

So far as the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant with respect to assessment of income of claimant to be 4000/- only is concerned, claimant on the date of accident was aged about 27 years. He is residing in Raipur which is also a capital of State and industrial city of Chhattisgarh. On the date of accident income of a person even if he is doing labour work would be much more than what is assessed by the Tribunal. For the purpose of ascertaining the income of applicant in absence of admissible piece of evidence sum guess work is also required to be done taking into consideration the age of the claimant, place of resident, price index, cost of living, wage rate structure etc.

¶40

Considering the fact that learned Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that claimant proved his occupation to be head Chef /Cook and therefore, I find it appropriate to assess income of the claimant as Rs.6000/- per month instead of Rs.4,000/- per month.

¶41

Learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation under head ‘loss of future prospects’. Claimant has suffered 50% permanent disability and’ therefore’ taking into consideration the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sidram Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance company Limited and Anr. (2023) 3 SCC 439, appellant will be entitled for the addition of 40% of the

¶42

-6-

¶43

assessed income towards future prospects. It is ordered accordingly.

¶44

Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant could not able to point out that learned Tribunal escaped consideration any of the medical bills while computing the amount of compensation towards medical expenses of Rs.1,11,232/-. Hence, in view of the above, amount of compensation awarded under medical expenses is affirmed.

¶45

So far as submission of learned counsel for the appellant claimant that learned Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.50,000/- towards future medial treatment is concerned claimant has not submitted any document mentioning requisite amount of future treatment, however, looking to the nature of injuries suffered by appellant/claimant, learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards ‘future treatment’ which in the opinion of this Court appears to be correct and does not call for any interference.

¶46

Learned Claims Tribunal justified in awarding consolidated amount of Rs.50,000/- towards special diet, conveyance and miscellaneous expenses. Appellant suffered paraplegia on both of his legs and therefore considering age of claimant to be only 27 years and further that doctor has recorded that he cannot enjoy his sexual life as an ordinary man, I find it appropriate to enhance amount of compensation awarded under pain and suffering from Rs.75,000/- to Rs.1 lakh. It is ordered accordingly. Amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded for ‘reduction in life expectancy and loss of amenities of life’ also appears to be less in the fact of the case looking to the nature of injury and disability suffered by claimant to be on lower limb and accordingly it is enhanced to Rs.1

¶47

-7-

¶48

lakh. Amount of compensation awarded towards ‘attendant’ appears to be just and proper which does call for any interference.

¶49

Amount of compensation towards ‘loss of income’ requires reconsideration and recomputation. Doctor has assessed permanent disability of claimant to the extent of 50% . Dr. Arun Madhariya ( AW-2) in his evidence stated that appellant suffered fracture of D-12, L-1 and commuted cord injury. Upon CT scan of Dorso -Lumbar Spine (D8 to L3), following impressions was found by the Radiologist which is mentioned as under:

¶50

“ Impressions :

¶51

1. Burst fracture of body of L1 vertebral body showing splaying ad retropulsion of fragments into spinal canal causing severe compression of thecal sac. Fracture separation of both spinous process with fracture causing dehiscence of spinous process posteriorly also noted as L1 level.

¶52

1. Narrow disk space with diffuse bulge of disk indenting the thecal sac at D12-L1 and L1 – L2 level ” .

¶53

CT scan of Dorso -Lumbar Spine is filed as Ex.P-6. Dr. Arun Madhariya (AW-2) in his evidence has stated that due to nature of disability suffered and looking to the part of body claimant could able to walk only through wheel-chair or crutch /walker.

¶54

In the aforementioned facts of case and looking to the nature of his working as head Chef in a hotel i.e. Santoshi Bhog Bhandar, claimant could not be able to do work of such nature . He may not not be able to sit on the ground, bend etc.

¶55

-8-

¶56

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343 has considered that loss of ‘earning capacity’ may differ from loss of ‘permanent disability’ as assessed by the medical board or doctor and mentioned in disability certificate. Looking to nature of work of claimant, permanent disability may be less, but at times considering nature of work, claimant may suffer loss of earning capacity more than what is mentioned.

¶57

In the case at hand also looking to the nature of work which the claimant was doing, and found proved by Claims Tribunal will affect more on his earning and therefore I find it appropriate to assess loss of earning capacity to the extent of 80% instead of 50%. Accordingly, amount of computation to be awarded towards loss of earning capacity is required re-computation.

¶58

For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:-

¶59

S. N.	Heads	Compensation
1.	Loss of Income (A) Income 6000 x 12 =72000 :	Rs. 13,70,880
	(B) Addition towards future prospects @ 40% (72000 x 40% =28800) 72000+28800 =1,00,800 (C) Loss of earning capacity of 80% (1,00,800 x80 % =80640) (D) Multiplier of 17 80640 x 17= 13,70,880
2.	Medical Expenses :	(+) Rs. 1,11,232

¶60

-9-

¶61

3.	Future Medical Treatment	: (+) Rs. 50,000
4.	Special Diet, Conveyance and Miscellaneous Expenses	: (+) Rs. 50,000
5.	Physical and mental suffering/pain	: (+) Rs. 1,00,000
6.	Reduction in life expectancy and loss of amenities in life	: (+) Rs. 1,00,000
7.	Attendant	: (+) Rs. 25,000
	Total compensation	: Rs. 18,07,112

¶62

Now the appellant/claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs.18,07,112/- instead of Rs.11,77,232/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

¶63

Aforementioned total amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Other conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. f 2

¶64

The appellant/claimant will not be entitled to get interest for the delayed period in filing the appeal i.e. 397 days as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakkamma & Ors. vs. Regional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (2021) 20 SCC 797.

¶65

Appeal is accordingly allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above.

¶66

Sd/- Sd/-

¶67

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶68

Praveen

Gufran Khan @ Pappu Khan v. Devendra Dorle

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gufran Khan @ Pappu Khan v. Devendra Dorle

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

Revaram Sonkar Vs Bhagbali Patre

Smt. Aam Bai Vs Atma Ram Sahu

Branch Manager, Vs Batni

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Shivam Sahu

Sunder Singh (Died and Deleted) Through LRs. Vs Ibraham

Yogesh Kumar Sahu Vs Satender Singh