Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 5727
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Parth Prateem Sahu, J
RUSTAM JOSHI – Appellant
Versus
SATNAM SINGH @ SONU SINGH – Respondent
MAC No. 623 of 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Akash Shrivastava
For the Respondents: Mrs. Swati Agrawal, Mr. Pankaj Agrawal
Compensation for permanent disability must account for future prospects, and minimum wages should guide income assessments in personal injury claims.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident - Tribunal awarded ₹ 7,36,535/- which was deemed inadequate; appeal modified compensation to ₹ 12,19,947/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. - The applicant suffered grievous injuries due to negligent driving and permanent disability. (Paras 1, 7, 11, 18)
(B) Compensation Assessment - The Tribunal erred in assessing the applicant's monthly income at ₹ 5,000/- instead of ₹ 9,000/- claimed; future prospects were not considered, leading to inadequate compensation. (Paras 8, 12, 18)
(C) Legal Principles - Future prospects for self-employed individuals with permanent disability must be considered when calculating compensation, as established in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi. (Paras 12, 13, 14)
(D) Issues - The main issues included the adequacy of the compensation awarded, assessment of monthly income, and the need to include future prospects in the compensation calculation. (Paras 8, 11) (E) Findings of Court - The court found that the initial compensation was inadequate and recalculated based on proper assessment of income and future prospects, awarding a total of ₹ 12,19,947/-. (Paras 18) (F) Ratio Decidendi - The court emphasized that compensation must reflect the realities of the claimant's situation, including loss of future earnings due to permanent disability, and that minimum wages should be considered for income assessment. (Paras 12, 18) (G) Result - Appeal allowed in part, modifying the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arguments regarding compensation and income assessment. (Para 9) |
| 2. court's findings on liability and compensation. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. legal principles on future prospects in compensation. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. final compensation calculation and order. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
Order On Board
08/05/2025
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 24.10.2019 passed by Learned Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 754/2016, PAWAN KUMAR whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 7,36,535/- as compensation.
2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 24.11.2015 at about 10.30 am in village Parsathi under police station Aabhanpur, district Raipur, non-applicant no. 1 drove the vehicle truck no. CG 04-JA/5431 (henceforth “offending vehicle”) carelessly and parked it in the middle of the road between the electric wire. Offending vehicle was loaded with paddy sacks which started touching the wires. On the instruction of non-applicant no. 1 to lift aside the cable wire, applicant lifted the cable wire stuck to the paddy sack. At the same time, non-applicant no. 1 drove the offending vehicle forward negligently in which right hand of applicant holding the cable wire touched the high power voltage wire, due to which applicant suffered electric shock, his right hand got burnt. The applicant was admitted to Kalda Hospital in Raipur in an injured condition. After that he was admitted in Mekahara Hospital from 26.11.2015 to 12.12.2015.
3. Appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking ₹ 43,65,000/- as compensation pleading therein that on the date of accident applicant was aged about 26 years healthy person. He is sole breadwinner of his family. At the time of the accident, the applicant was doing the work of mason and was earning ₹ 9,000/- per month and maintaining himself and his family. Due to accident and permanent disability, applicant suffered loss of income.
4. Non-applicant No. 1/ Respondent No. 1-Driver of offending vehicle did not appear before the trial court, therefore, he was proceeded ex parte.
5. Non-applicant No. 2/ Respondent No. 2/ owner of the offending vehicle filed his reply to the claim application, denying all the adverse pleadings made therein, it was further pleaded that applicant himself is responsible for the said accident. Non-applicant no.1/ driver did not drive the offending vehicle carelessly. The driver had parked his vehicle at the right place and did not collide with the electric wire. It is stated that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant no. 3 and therefore, the liability to pay the compensation, if any, lies with the insurance company.
6. Non-applicant No. 3/ Resp. No. 3-Insurance Company in its reply, apart from accepting the undisputed facts, has denied the pleadings made in the application and further stated that the accident occurred due self negligence of the applicant. On the date of accident, non-applicant no. 1 did not have a valid and effective license to drive the offending vehicle and the vehicle was being driven without a valid, fitness and permit. It was pleaded that the applicant was neither an employee, labourer in the offending vehicle nor was owner of the paddy sacks filled in the said vehicle, nor being a representative of the owner, therefore he is not entitled to receive the claim amount or any compensation amount from the insurance company under the Motor Vehicles Act.
7. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that applicant/appellant suffered grievous injuries due to rash and negligent driving of truck by non-applicant no. 1. Breach of conditions
