Roshan Lal Nag Vs Goverdhan Netam

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:15980

¶3

Digitally 2025:CGHC:15980 A signed by ANNAJEE A RAO ANNAJEE

¶4

RAO NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 580 of 2019

¶7

1 - Roshan Lal Nag S/o Chaitan Ram Nag, Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Khaspara, Adenga, Tahsil Keshkal, District Kondagaon --Chhattisgarh… Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Goverdhan Netam S/o Chamra Ram Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Tatiras Para, Singhanpur, Tahsil Keshkal, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. ( Driver ).

¶10

2 - Rohit Katariya, S/o Chaman Katariya, R/o Adharsh Nagar Kanker, District Kanker Chhattisgarh (Owner ).

¶11

3 - Branch Manager, the New India Insurance Company Limited, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer ). --- Respondents.

¶12

For the appellant : Mr. Rohan Kumbhare, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate. For Respondents 1 & 2 : None

¶13

For respondent no.3 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate

¶14

2

¶15

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)

¶16

Judgment/Order on Board

¶17

04/04/2025

¶18

1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed challenging the award dated 14.12.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kondagaon in Claim Case No. 47 of 2018. By the impugned award, the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.11,47,681/- as total compensation to the claimant on account of injury caused to him by the offending Truck No.C.G.19-H/0838 which was rashly and negligently driven by respondent no.1.

¶19

2. According to the facts pleaded in claim case, the appellant was running the business of computer and photocopy center and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month and on 7.01.2018 at about 6.00 PM, when he was going on motorcycle, the above offending truck driven by respondent no.1 rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle from the behind, as a result of which, the appellant sustained grievous injuries on his left hand and other part of the body. The appellant was initially admitted in Community Health Center, Keshkal from where he was referred to Balaji Hospital, Raipur for better treatment where his left hand was operated. The appellant was further admitted in Rama Krishna Hospital Raipur from 9.01.2018 to 12.01.2018 and further from 05.02.2018 to 28.02.2018 where his left hand was amputated, due to which, he suffered permanent disability and is unable to work on

¶20

3

¶21

computers, therefore, he filed an application claiming a total compensation of Rs.75,14,175/- on various heads.

¶22

3. The learned claims Tribunal after considering the evidence and documents brought on record found that due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1 the offending Truck dashed the motorcycle of the appellant from behind and caused injury to the appellant thereby he sustained permanent disability and no contributory negligence was proved. The Tribunal has held the monthly income of appellant to be Rs.9000/- and after taking into consideration 50% permanent disability sustained by the appellant, his income was taken as Rs.4500/- and further looking to the age of appellant to be 34 years, multiplier 16 was adopted and thus worked out the future loss of income to be Rs.8,64,000/-. The Tribunal has also granted Rs.1,53,681/- for treatment (medical expenses), 1,00,000/- for injury, pain, suffering and permanent disability; Rs.5000/- for transportation charges, Rs.5000/towards expenses of medical assistant and Rs.20,000 for loss of income and nutritious food. Thus a total sum of Rs.11,47,781/- was granted to the appellant as total compensation.

¶23

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that at the time of accident, he was aged about 33 years and was earning Rs.2000/- per day by running a Computer and Photocopy shop by doing the internet and online works on computers in that shop and he is also the holder of PGDCA Certificate. He submits that if his hand was not amputated due to the accident, he being a skilled worker would have earned more than Rs.20,000/- per month however, the tribunal

¶24

4

¶25

has wrongly held the monthly income to be Rs.9000/- and since he sustained 50% disability, his net monthly income was taken as Rs.4,500/- which is on much lower side. He further submits that the Tribunal has not granted future prospects and prays that since the compensation granted by the Tribunal is meagre, the award may suitably be enhanced.

¶26

5. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 supports the award and submits that the compensation has rightly been awarded and does not require any interference by this Court.

¶27

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. On the date of accident, the appellant was 34 years of age, therefore, the Tribunal has correctly adopted the multiplier 16. As regards the monthly earning of appellant, he pleaded that he was working on computers and was earning more than Rs.20,000/- per month. Therefore, looking to the nature of work done and qualification of the appellant, it would be just and proper to hold the income of appellant as Rs.10,000/- per month. Accordingly, this Court holds the monthly income to be Rs. 10,000/- . The age of the appellant is found to be 34 years. So in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 , on further adding 40% future prospects i.e. Rs. 4000, his monthly income becomes Rs.14,000/- which on multiplying by 12 the annual income comes to Rs. 1,68,000/-. His loss of earning capacity is considered to be 50 percent i.e., Rs.84,000/-. In other words, the

¶28

5

¶29

annual loss of income comes to Rs. 84,000 (1,68,000 minus 84,000) which on multiplying by multiplier 16, the future loss of income would be Rs.13,44,000/-. Thus this Court is computing the following compensation as under :

¶30

A	Future loss of income	Rs.13,44,000/-
B	For medical treatment as awarded bythe tribunal	Rs.1,53,681/-
C	Injury, pain & suffering as also permanent disability as awarded by the Tribunal	Rs.1,00,000/-
D	Transport charges as awarded by the Tribunal	Rs. 5,000/-
E	Medical Attendant/Assistant Expenses as awarded by the Tribunal	Rs. 5,000/-
F	Loss of Income and nutritious food as awarded bythe Tribunal	Rs. 20,000 /-
	Total compensation	Rs.16,27,681/-

¶31

8. Thus the total compensation is recomputed to Rs.16,27,681/-. from which after deduction of Rs.11,47,681/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs.4,80,000/-.

¶32

9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed . The claimants are entitled for the enhanced amount of Rs. 4,80,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of enhancement of the award till its realisation. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact.

¶33

10. The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimant in

¶34

6

¶35

writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants reside.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judge

¶38

Rao

Roshan Lal Nag v. Goverdhan Netam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan Lal Nag v. Goverdhan Netam

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

Arun Yadav Vs Smt. Shashi Prabha Diwan Joujay

The Oriental Insurance Company Private Limited Vs Shri Rakesh Verma

The Oriental Insurancen Company Limited Vs Om Prakash Yadav

Vijay Yadav @ Vijju Vs Mohammad Nasim Ansari

Smt. Poonam Rai Vs Smt. Sandhya Bai

Raja Kurre Vs Lalita Dhiwar