Compensation for injuries must be just and account for past earnings and suffering, requiring reassessment when initial awards are inadequate.

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board

17/06/2025 Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the case Date:

2025.06.24 +0530 is heard finally.

2. This is the claimant’s appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (CG) vide award dated

27.10.2018 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. H-221/2014.

3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the claimant/appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, seeking compensation stating therein that on 25.10.2012 at about 4:00 p.m. when the applicant was walking with the crowd for Durga immersion, driver of a truck CG 04-ZC/370 drove his vehicle rashly and negligently into the crowd, due to which, one person died and the applicant received severe injuries on his head, hands, legs and chest, who was taken to Primary Health Center, Khariyar Road for first aid. Looking to his serious condition, he was referred to Mekahara Hospital Raipur and thereafter applicant's family admitted him to Shri Narayana Hospital on 25.10.2012. Applicant remained admitted there till 05.11.2012 and took treatment. Before the accident, the applicant was a 19-years-old healthy and hardworking young boy. He was earning Rs. 200/- per day by working as a labourer. After the accident, the applicant is not able to earn income due to disability caused by the injuries. The applicant is unable to perform his daily routine work, due to which, severe financial difficulties have arisen for the applicant and as a result of the accident, the applicant is facing mental, physical pain and suffering. Applicant/claimant prayed for total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from non-applicants.

4. Non-applicant No.1 remained ex-parte in the claim proceedings, no written statement was filed on his behalf.

5. Non-applicant No.2 has filed his written statement stating that at the time of the accident, the driver of vehicle number CG 04 ZC 0370 i.e non-applicant No.1 was a valid licensed driver and the said vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3. Therefore, it is the non-applicant No.3 which is liable to pay amount of compensation, if any.

6. Non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company by filing its written statement has stated that on the date of accident, the vehicle truck no. CG 04- ZC/0370, was driven in violation of conditions of the insurance policy and hence, non-applicant No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation amount. On the date of accident, the said vehicle, truck no. CG 04- ZC/0370, which is a goods carrier, was used for Durga Visarjan, carrying passengers and taking out processions in violation of the Motor Vehicle Rules and conditions contained in the insurance policy. The vehicle owner and driver violated the conditions of insurance policy, hence applicant No.3/Insurance Company is not liable to pay amount of compensation.

7. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which appellant/claimant suffered grievous injuries. Recording a finding that breac