Raj Mohan Kashyap Vs Rajesh Yadav

¶1

1

NIRMALA RAO

2026:CGHC:687

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 1254 of 2019

¶7

1 - Raj Mohan Kashyap S/o Mukund Kashyap Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Sadgud, Police Station Parpa, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶8

--- Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Rajesh Yadav S/o Late Shri Shyam Lal Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Mangadu Kachora, Sahu Para, Adawal, Jagdalpur, Bastar Chhattisgarh. ( Driver And Owner), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Branch Manager, The National Insurance Company Limited, Sirasar Chowk, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer ), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶12

--- Respondent(s)

¶13

MAC No. 1257 of 2019

¶14

1 - Hasta @ Astha Nag S/o Somaru Nag Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Sidmud, P.S. Parpa, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh.................(Claimant), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶15

--- Petitioner(s)

¶16

Versus

¶17

1 - Rajesh Yadav S/o Late Shri Shyam Lal Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Mangadu Kachora, Sahu Para, Adawal, Jagdalpur, Bastar, Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶18

2

¶19

2 - Branch Manager The National Insurance Company Limited, Sirasar Chowk, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh.................(Insurer), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶20

----------------------------------------	---------	---Respondent(s) --------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellants	:	Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate.
For Insurance Company	:	Shri Shashank Agrawal, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate.

¶21

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶22

Order on Board

¶23

06.01.2026

¶24

These two appeals have been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation against awards passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Claim Case Nos.133 of 2018 & 134 of 2018 dated 3.5.2019 whereby the learned Tribunal granted compensation to the tune of Rs.2,01,649/alongwith interest @ 9% per annum on account of injuries sustained by Raj Mohan Kashyap and Rs.2,31,000/- alongwith interest @9/- per annum on account of injuries sustained by Hasta @ Astha Nag.

¶25

The facts, in nutshell, are that on 2.5.2018 at about 11:00 pm, when the claimants were returning home, the driver of pick-up bearing registration No.C.G.17 KK 5168 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.17 KC 3760, resultantly, both the claimants were sustained injuries. Claimant - Raj Mohan Kashyap in MAC No.1254 of 2019 filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein he pleaded that in the said accident he sustained serious injuries including fracture of right leg and right shoulder. He pleaded that he was a Shiksha Karmi and

¶26

3

¶27

earning Rs.15,000/- per month and claimed compensation of Rs.26,30,000/-. Claimant – Hasta @ Astha Nag in MAC No.1257 of 2019 also sustained serious injuries over right leg including a fracture. He pleaded that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and claimed compensation of Rs.14,00,000/-.

¶28

In MAC No.1254 of 2019: Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the claimant sustained serious injuries and suffered fracture of right leg and shoulder. It is argued that a disability certificate Ex.A/30 to the extent of 52% was issued by the Medical Board. He would submit that the learned Tribunal failed to consider properly the loss of income and awarded meagre compensation under other heads. He would pray to enhance the compensation.

¶29

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellant. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. He would submit that the claimant was a Shiksha Karmi drawing a fixed salary from the department and therefore, there was no loss of earning. It was further submitted that the claimant failed to prove the fact that he did not receive salary during the period of hospitalization. He would submit that under other heads, the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection.

¶31

4

¶32

The claimant examined himself as AW-1 and proved the contents of the claim petition. He stated that he remained hospitalized from 2.5.2018 to 9.5.2018. He further deposed that after surgery, a steel rod was inserted in his right leg. The claimant, being a Shiksha Karmi, himself pleaded his monthly income to be Rs.15,000/-. The Learned Tribunal has assessed the loss of earning for three months and granted compensation of Rs.45,000/-. The claimant could not adduce evidence to establish that the salary for the said period was not paid to the claimant by the department, therefore, I do not find any good ground to disturb the finding recorded with regard to loss of earning.

¶33

Learned Tribunal has assessed the functional disability to the extent of 18%. As the claimant was a Shiksha Karmi earning a fixed salary from the department and there is no evidence to the effect that the claimant suffered any loss of income on account of accident or disability, therefore, in my opinion, the learned Tribunal rightly declined grant of compensation on account of disability suffered by the claimant.

¶34

Learned Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.25,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- for conveyance, Rs.10,000/- for attendant, Rs.10,000/- for special diet and Rs.25,000/- for loss of amenities. Learned Tribunal recorded a finding that the claimant remained bedridden for a period of three months and therefore, the figure arrived at by the learned Tribunal with regard to attendant requires reconsideration. The compensation for attendant granted by the learned Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. Thus, the claimant shall be entitled for an additional sum of Rs.15,000/alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of application till its

¶35

5

¶36

realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶37

In MAC No.1257 of 2019: Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. He would contend that the claimant suffered disability to the extent of 45% but the learned Tribunal considered functional disability at 15% only. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has not granted proper compensation on account of disability suffered by the claimant. He would submit that on other heads, the learned Tribunal has not granted proper compensation. He would pray for enhancement.

¶38

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that the claimant himself pleaded his income at Rs.6,000/- per month and in absence of evidence, the learned Tribunal has assessed monthly income at Rs.5,000/- per month. He would contend that the Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. He would submit that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶39

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection.

¶40

Though the claimant pleaded in the claim petition his income at Rs.6,000/- per month but this Court may grant just and proper compensation looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. The minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of May, 2018 was Rs.7,800/- per month and the learned Tribunal should have taken that figure into account while computing the compensation.

¶41

6

¶42

As there is functional disability to the extent of 15%, the learned Tribunal should have granted compensation for future prospects. The age of the deceased was 43 years, therefore, the claimant would be entitled to get an additional sum of 25% of income for future prospects. On other heads, the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. The compensation is being revisited herein-below:

¶43

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Monthly Income	Rs.5,000/-	Rs. 7,800/-
2.	Future prospects	---	25% (1,950/-) (7,800 + 1,950 = 9,750/-
2.	Functional Disability	15% - 750/-	15% - 1,463/-
3.	Loss of future earning	(750 x 12 = 9,000/-)	(1,463 x 12 = 17,556/-)
4.	Multiplier	(x) 14 = Rs. (9,000 x 14 = 1,26,000/-)	(x) 14 = Rs. (17,556 x 14 = 2,45,784/-)
5.	Loss of earning during treatment	Rs. 5,000 x 3 = 15,000/-	Rs. 7,800 x 3 = 23,400/-
6.	Pain and suffering	25,000/-	25,000/-
7.	Transportation	5,000/-	5,000/-
8.	Assistance	10,000/-	10,000/-
9.	Special diet	10,000/-	10,000/-
10.	Medical expenses	10,000/-	10,000/-
11.	Loss of amenities	15,000/-	15,000/-
12.	Expectation of life	15,000/-	15,000/-
	TOTAL	Rs. 2,31,000/-	Rs. 3,59,184/-

¶44

7

¶45

In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.2,31,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,59,184/- . Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.2,31,000/- , the appellant/claimant/ injured is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,28,184/- . The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶46

Accordingly, both the appeals are partly allowed and the impugned awards are modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶49

Nimmi

Raj Mohan Kashyap v. Rajesh Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Mohan Kashyap v. Rajesh Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhattisgarh Housing Board Vs Shreejikrupa Project

Jawahar Lal Vs Anil Kumar

Kachru Ram Tekam Vs Gajendra Kumar Tulavi

Kulwant Chawla Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Harish Chandra Nishad Vs Shri Tikeshwar

Branch Manager Vs Smt. Manki Mandavi