Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 6614
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Parth Prateem Sahu, J
Dinesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Sidhayak Sahu – Respondent
MAC No. 117 of 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. A.L. Singhroul
For the Respondents: Mr. Deepak Gupta
Compensation in personal injury cases should adequately reflect permanent disability and future earning potential as established in relevant case law.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: This case involves the application of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 and the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Facts of the Case: The appellant suffered serious injuries due to an accident involving an offending vehicle on 17.08.2018. The Claims Tribunal previously awarded a compensation that the appellant deemed inadequate, particularly since it did not fully consider the appellant's permanent disability.
Findings of Court:
The court identified that the earlier income assessment was low and subsequently recalculated compensation.
Issues: The court framed the issue of whether the compensation awarded was just and required enhancement based on new calculations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principle that compensation should reflect the reality of damages suffered, particularly considering permanent disability and future prospects as stated in precedent judgments.
Result: The appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal for compensation enhancement based on injuries. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented for compensation assessment. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's observations on income assessment and disability. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 10) |
| 4. rationale for recalculating compensation based on legal precedents. (Para 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 5. final decision to enhance compensation awarded. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
Order On Board
10/06/2025
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 06.11.2019 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.
348/2019.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 17.08.2018, when the appellant along with his friend namely, Bharat Singh on his motorcycle bearing registration no. CG 12 AR 6449 was going towards Batari, at that time around 08:30 P.M., when they reached near Kosabadi, the offending vehicle i.e. Truck bearing registration no. CG 10 AK 8492 driven by the Respondent No. 1 stopped the vehicle suddenly on the middle of the road due to which, the appellant met with an accident with the offending vehicle. In the said accident, appellant and his friend suffered serious injuries, they were taken to Hospital for treatment. Subsequent to the accident, a crime was registered against the Respondent No. 1 bearing Crime No. 173/2018 at P.S. Deepka, District – Korba for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding a meagre sum as compensation, overlooking the fact that the appellant suffered loss of left eye in the accident resulting in permanent disability. However, the learned Claims Tribunal assessing permanent disability to the extent of 50% has assessed loss of earning capacity as 40% only. He also contended that the income assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal is on lower side. The amount of compensation awarded on other heads is also on lower side and the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is fastened upon the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company.
Hence, the amount of compensation may be suitably enhanced.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 do not dispute the submission made by the counsel for appellant that, the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is on the Respondent No. 3/Insurance company. He further submits that the amount of compensation awarded in the facts of the case is just and proper and does not call for any interference.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the claim case.
6. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant with respect to the assessment of the income of the appellant is concerned, the date of accident is 07.08.2018. In the pleadings, it is mentioned that the appellant was working as Mason and earning Rs. 400/- per day. However, the said pleading could not be proved by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence. In the aforementioned facts of the case, learned Claims Tribunal has rightly decided to assess the income of the appellant on notional basis. For assessing the income, in cases, where the claimant/appellants failed to prove the nature of occupation and the income from the said occupation by producing clinching and admissible piece of evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal is required to consider the age of the claimant/deceased, the price index and may also take the help of the minimum wages as fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the purpose of computing the amount of compensation.
7. In the case at hand, learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant/claimant as Rs. 6,000/- per month without assigning any reason for the same. In the facts of the case, where there is no
