Akhilendra Pratap Singh Vs Monu Chouhan

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:28244

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 1334 of 2019

¶6

1 - The New India Insurance Company Ltd. By Divisional Manager, Divisional Office- No. 2adjacent To L.I.C. Building Jeevan Beema Marg Pandri Raipur Chhattisgarh. Through Authorised Signatory The New India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office 2nd Floor Rama Trade Center Above Axis Bank, Opposite Rajiv Plaza Purana Bus Stand Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶7

--- Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Akhilendra Pratap Singh S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Singh Aged About 32 Years Site Supervisor R/o C/o Aryan Builders Near Fish Pond Police Station Gudihari Raipur Chhattisgarh.(Claimant).

¶10

2 - Monu Chouhan S/o Gangu Chouhan Aged About 29 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Village Post And Police Station Dadhi, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Mohan Lal Agrawal S/o Late Prahlad Rai Agrawal Occupation Owner Of The Vehicle R/o Bhaiji Garage, Station Chowk, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

--- Respondents

¶13

MAC No. 662 of 2019

¶14

1 - Akhilendra Pratap Singh S/o Kanhiyalal Singh Aged About 32 Years Profession Site Supervisor, Residence Of C/o Aryen Builders, Near Machi Talab, P.S.- Gudiyari, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492001............. (Claimant), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

---Appellant

¶16

Versus

¶17

1 - Monu Chouhan S/o Gangu Chouhan Profession-Driver, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village And P.S.- Dhadhi, Tehsil And District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.- 491335...............(Driver)

¶18

BALRAM PRASAD 2 - Mohan Lal Agarwal S/o Pehlad Rai Agarwal Profession-Vehicle Owner, DEWANGAN R/o Bhaiji Gariage, Station Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.- 492001............ Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD (Owner), DEWANGAN

¶19

2

¶20

3 - The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, No. 02, Beside L.I.C. Building, L.I.C. Road, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492001...........(Insurer)

¶21

--- Respondents

¶22

For Appellant (in MAC 1334/2019) : Mr. B.N. Nandey, Advocate For Appellant (in MAC 662/2019) & : Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, Advocate Respondent No.1 (in MAC 1334/2019)

¶23

For Resp. No.3 (in MAC 662/2019) : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate

¶24

For Res.No.2 & 3 (in MAC 1334/2019): Ms. Swati Rani Saraf on behalf of Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate

¶25

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶26

Order On Board

¶27

26/06/2025

¶28

Appellant/Insurance Company has filed appeal (MAC No. 1334/2019) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) against the quantum of impugned award, whereas MAC No.662 of 2019 is filed by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement compensation awarded by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District – Raipur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 20.11.2018 passed in Claim Case No.61/2018.

¶29

Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that a claim application U/s.166 of the Act, 1988 was filed by the appellant/injured seeking compensation of Rs.65,00,000/- against the injury suffered by him in the road accident pleading therein that on 19.08.2015 at around 11:30 PM, the applicant, Akhilendra Pratap Singh, was carefully and slowly

¶30

3

¶31

riding his Bullet motorcycle (No. CG-04-DH-0999) on the left side of the road while traveling from Fafadeeh to Gudhiyari. Upon reaching near Railway Station Chowk, a truck (No. CG-04-ZC-2808), being driven at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed him from behind. As a result, the applicant sustained serious injuries to his left knee and other parts of his body. He was immediately taken to Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur, where he was admitted from 20.08.2015 to 24.08.2015, underwent surgery for a bone injury below the knee and rod was implanted. He was then admitted to V.Y. Hospital, Kamal Vihar, Raipur from 24.08.2015 to 26.09.2015, where surgery was performed to treat a wound below the left knee, including skin grafting near the left thigh. Subsequently, he was admitted to Kalda Burn & Plastic Surgery Center, Raipur from 26.09.2015 to 06.10.2015, where micro plastic surgery was carried out. As his condition had not fully improved, he was readmitted to V.Y. Hospital from 07.10.2015 to 04.12.2015 for further treatment. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, he was healthy man of 32 years and was working as Supervisor in Aryan Builders Gudiyari, Raipur and was earing Rs.10,000/- per month. The applicant suffered permanent disability in the accident.

¶32

Non-applicant No.1 and 2 jointly filed their reply to the claim application resisting the claim. It was pleaded that non-applicant was having valid driving license at the time of accident and he was driving the vehicle carefully. Accident occurred due to self negligence of the applicant himself. Non-applicant No.3 also filed reply to the application denying the pleadings made therein. It was pleaded that accident

¶33

4

¶34

occurred due to self negligence of the applicant himself. At the time of accident, non-applicant No.1 was not having valid and effective driving license and the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of the conditions of insurance policy without any permit.

¶35

Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, allowed the claim application in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.23,37,800/- fastening the liability upon the non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company.

¶36

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company (in MAC No. 1334 of 2019) submits that although several grounds have been raised in the appeal, however, he is confining his arguments solely to the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal under the head of medical expenses. It is contended that the learned Claims Tribunal has erroneously awarded a substantial sum of ₹ 17,25,000/- towards medical expenses in favour of the claimant/injured. The counsel argues that this amount has been granted without proper scrutiny and appreciation of the documentary evidence available on record. He submits that the Tribunal failed to evaluate the authenticity of the medical bills and prescriptions submitted by the claimant, which has resulted in an excessive and unjustified award under this head.

¶37

Learned counsel for the appellant/injured in MAC No. 662 of 2019 submits that the learned Claims Tribunal committed a grave error in awarding a meager amount of compensation, failing to adequately consider the severity and nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant as well as the prolonged period of medical treatment

¶38

5

¶39

undergone. The income of the appellant/injured has been assessed on the lower side. Learned Claim Tribunal has also wrongly assessed the amount towards loss of income. The learned Claims Tribunal has also failed to award proper and suitable compensation on other heads. He prays for suitable enhancement of compensation.

¶40

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 (in MAC No.662/2019) opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, which does not call for any interference.

¶41

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

¶42

The nature of injuries suffered by the appellant is mentioned in document (Ex.P-373), which reads as under :-

¶43

“Polytrauma with crush injury left knee with leg with compound comminuted fracture distal femur left with tibia with bone loss with multiple ligament injury of knee with severe contamination with shock.”

¶44

The nature of above injuries suffered by the appellant is very grievous. He suffered crush injury knee, compound comminuted fracture distal femur left with tibia with bone loss with multiple ligament injury of knee. From perusal of the photograph attached in the disability certificate, it is also appearing that there is disfigurement of the leg. Doctor who examined the claimant, had issued disability certificate mentioning 84% permanent disablement. However, in the examination before

¶45

6

¶46

Court, he has stated that disability certificate issued is with respect to part of the body suffered injuries i.e. one leg.

¶47

In the aforementioned facts of the case and the nature of the injuries suffered by the claimant it is to be considered what would be the loss of earning capacity suffered by claimant. As per pleading, claimant/ applicant was working as Supervisor in Aryan Builders and Development Pvt. Ltd. and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. In support of the same has placed on record the the certificate/salary certificate (Ex.P3), however, no witness was examined to prove the same. The learned Claims Tribunal upon considering entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record, has assessed the income of the appellant on notional basis as Rs.6,000/per month treating him to be a skilled labour, which in the opinion of this Court does not call for any interference. Accordingly taking the monthly income of injured/applicant of Rs.6,000/-, the annual income comes to Rs.72,000/-.

¶48

Loss of earning capacity cannot be computed by applying straight jacket formula considering the part of body in which the persons suffered injuries. While computing the loss of earning capacity, the Court may also consider the nature of injuries suffered, nature of occupation and further there may be cases where percentage of disability may be less but loss of earning capacity may be more. Like in the case at hand where the doctor in his evidence has proved that due to the motor accidental injuries, claimant suffered stiffness on his ankle joint, which is permanent in nature, which cannot be cured even after taking physiotherapy treatment.

¶49

7

¶50

If the pleadings and oral evidence of the claimant are accepted, it is evident that he became unfit for jobs similar to the one he was stated to be engaged in i.e. supervisor. In cases where the claimant failed to prove the nature of employment in normal case, the tribunal and the Courts consider the employment of a person to be one of unskilled labourer. Looking to the nature of injuries and the evidence of the Dr. P.K. Gupta (AW-2), who issued the disability certificate that injured/applicant is not in position to do the labourer work as he cannot able to move in present condition like an ordinary man. Considering entirety of the facts of the case, the evidence of Dr. P.K. Gupta, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the loss of earning capacity as 40% only which is on lower side. Upon considering the document (Ex.P-373), the discharge against medical advice/MLC issued by Ram Krishna Care Hospital, Raipur Department of Orthopedics, the age of the claimant/appellant as 32 years and the evidence of doctor Dr. P.K. Gupta (AW-2) as also considering the disfigurement of his leg near knee I find it appropriate to assess the loss of earning capacity of the claimant to the extent of 60%. It is ordered accordingly.

¶51

Perusal of the impugned award would show that any amount towards future prospects has not been awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sidram Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439 has settled the law with respect to grant of future prospects in case of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor accident. As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of

¶52

8

¶53

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 32 years of age, hence, the income is required to be enhanced by 40% towards future prospects. It is ordered accordingly.

¶54

As the income of the injured is assessed as Rs.6,000/- per month, hence, after addition of 40% towards future prospects, the total monthly income of the injured comes to Rs.8,400/- (6,000 + 2,400 = 8,400) and annual income of the injured works out to Rs.1,00,800/-. The injured was 32 years of age at the time of accident, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 16. Accordingly, after applying the multiplier of 16, the total income of the injured comes to Rs.16,12,800/-

¶55

The loss of earning due to disability suffered by the appellant is held to the extent of 60%, therefore, compensation has to be calculated in that proportion and accordingly total compensation under the head of loss of earning capacity works out to Rs.9,67,680/-.

¶56

As the appellant suffered permanent disability, however, no amount was awarded to him for the attendant during the period of treatment. This Court has considered the loss of income for a period of one year i.e. during the laid down period and looking to the nature of injuries it cannot be ruled out that the appellant may have taken help and assistance of other persons for his movement and for visiting the hospital for treatment. For the forgoing discussion I find it appropriate

¶57

9

¶58

to award Rs.72,000/- towards the attendant for the period of one year taking the expenditure towards attendant of Rs.6,000/- per month.

¶59

The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded consolidated amount of Rs.50,000/- only towards other incidental expenses related to the hospital, special diet, attendant, but have not awarded any amount towards loss of income during the period of treatment, which is erroneous. Looking to the nature of injuries suffered by appellant , in the opinion of this Court, the appellant could not able to perform his work for period of about one year, therefore, I find it appropriate to award loss of income during the period of treatment for the period of one year i.e. Rs.6,000 x 12 = Rs.72,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. Looking to the nature of injuries, I find it appropriate to award Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/- towards special diet, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities in life.

¶60

So far as the grounds raised by the appellant/Insurance Company with regard to calculation of medical expenses towards the treatment/medical expenses is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company based on the certified copy of the same has re-totaled the medical expenses as Rs.15,81,086/- and the learned counsel for the claimant/applicant calculated the medical expenses of Rs.16,22,259/- upon verifying the records of the Claims Tribunal.

¶61

The learned Claims Tribunal has assessed a sum of 17,16,290/- ₹ towards medical expenses based on the bills marked as Exhibits P-10 to P-372. Taking into account that the claimant may not have

¶62

10

¶63

submitted all the bills for the expenses incurred, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of 17,25,000/-." ₹

¶64

In the aforementioned facts of the case and the calculation/ computation made by both the counsel, in which, the amount towards medical expenses as computed by the counsel for the claimants comes to Rs.16,22,259/- in the facts of the case I find it appropriate to accept the calculation made by the claimant/applicant, which is based on the record of the claim case. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I find it appropriate to award Rs.16,22,259/- towards medical expenses. It is ordered accordingly.

¶65

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

¶66

S.N.	Head		Amount. (Rs)
1.	Loss of income	:	9,67,680.00
2.	Loss of income during laid down period	:	72,000.00
3.	For attendant	:	72,000.00
4.	For pain and suffering	:	30,000.00
5.	For special diet	:	20,000.00
6.	For loss of amenities	:	50,000.00
7.	For medical expense	:	16,22,259.00
	Total Compensation	:	28,33,939.00

¶67

Accordingly both the appeals are allowed in part. The applicant/injured shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs. 28,33,939.00. Any amount paid to the appellant/injured as compensation as per award

¶68

11

¶69

shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the extent

¶70

indicated hereinabove above.

¶71

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶72

Balram

Akhilendra Pratap Singh v. Monu Chouhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilendra Pratap Singh v. Monu Chouhan

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

Samunbai Uraonv Vs Surendra Kumar Patel

Upendra Kumar Singh Vs Smt. Minal Singh

Upendra Kumar Singh Vs Ritesh Singh

Branch Manager Vs Smt. Preeti Singh

Jovakim Tirkey Vs Dr. Laxmi Narayan Patel

Smt. Priti Singh Vs Chintaram Sahu