SUNIL SURYAVANSHI vs RAKESH KUMAR SAHU

1


CGHC010288632024 2026:CGHC:44711

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1688 of 2024
1 - Sunil Suryavanshi S/o Sahas Ram Suryavanshi Aged About 35
Years R/o Pithampur Raod, Purhena Talab Pisaud, Police Station -
Janjgir, District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.)(Claimant)
2 - Ku. Shweta Suryavanshi D/o Sunil Suryavanshi Aged About 3
Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Father Sunil Suryavanshi R/o
Pithampur Road Purhena Talab Pisaud, Police Station - Janjgir,
District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) (Claimant)
... Appellants
versus
1 - Rakesh Kumar Sahu S/o Budhram Sahu Aged About 21 Years
R/o Village - Jarve (Cha) Police Station - Janjgir, District - Janjgir -
Champa (C.G.)( Driver Of Bolero Pickup No. Cg- 11 Ab- 0722
2 - Surendra Gir S/o Ghanshyam R/o Village - Jarve (Cha) Police
Station - Janjgir, District Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) (Owner Of Bolero
Pickup No. Cg- 11 Ab- 0722)
3 - Branch Manager, United Indaia Insurance Company Limited,
Branch Office - Gurukripa Tower, Second Floor, In Front Of Amber
Auto Mobile Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Police Station - Civil Line,
Tahsil And District Bilsapur (C.G.) (Insurance Company)
... Respondents
For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. S.P. Sannat, Adv. with
Ms. Deepika Kaushik, Adv.
For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Jogi, Adv.
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Adv.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
15/10/2026
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has
Digitally signed
by HEERA LAL
SAHU
Date:
2026.10.16
10:46:43
+0530

2
been preferred by the claimants challenging the award dated
rd
16.02.2024 passed by the 3 Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), in Motor Accident
Claim Case No.267/2019, whereby compensation of 13,84,990/-
₹
has been awarded to the claimants for the injuries sustained by
minor Shweta Suryavanshi (3 years old) in a road accident that
occurred on 24.10.2018.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that in the
accident in question, the minor sustained grievous injuries
resulting in the amputation of her left leg from the thigh, thereby
causing permanent disability. Although the disability certificate
(Ex.P-92) assesses his permanent disability at 80%, the Tribunal
has erroneously assessed the same at 70%. Learned counsel
further submits that, owing to the amputation of her left leg, the
appellant would require an artificial limb/prosthetic leg for his
lifetime. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation
towards the cost of the artificial limb and its maintenance. He
further submits that no amount has been awarded towards
expenses in future treatment which should ought to be considered.
It is also contended that the amounts awarded under the heads of
pain and suffering and other heads are also inadequate. The
injured is a 3 years old minor girl, therefore, the amount awarded
towards loss of earning is also inadequate. In support of his
contention he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Rina Rani Mallick vs. Susim
Kanti Mohanty, passed on 30.04.2025 in SLP(C) No. 17267/2024.
Accordingly, learned counsel prays that the appeal be allowed and
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal be suitably enhanced.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits
that the Tribunal, after duly appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence available on record, has rightly determined
the compensation payable to the appellant. It is contended that the
compensation awarded is just and proper and does not warrant
any interference by this Court.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival

3
submissions and perused the record of the Tribunal with due care.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rina Rani (supra) in
para 5 & 6 has held as under:-
“5. In this context, we have noticed a decision of this Court
in Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance
Company Limited , (2014) 14 SCC 396 , wherein a 12 year-old
child in the accident suffered permanent disability of 34% of
right lower limb and 18% to the whole body. This Court
emphasising the fact that there could be no income for
children and the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- as per the
second schedule, found that the compensation awarded on
that basis would be inadequate. It was held that the
compensation in such circumstances has to be under the
non-pecuniary heads in addition to the actual amounts for
treatment done, transportation, assistance of attendant,
etc. Considering the fact that the main element of damage
in the case of child victim is the pain, shock, frustration,
deprivation of ordinary pleasures and enjoyment associated
with healthy and mobile limbs, it was held that
compensation should enable the child to develop in such a
manner as to offset, at least, to some extent, the
inconvenience or discomfort arising out of the disability.
6. It was held that in addition to the heads for treatment,
attendant expenses, etc. if the disability is above 10% and
upto 30% Rs. 3 lakhs; upto 60% Rs. 4 lakhs; upto 90% Rs.
5 lakhs and above 90%, it should be Rs. 6 lakhs. A total of
Rs. 3,75,000/- was awarded in the said case”
6. On account of the accident, appellant, Ku. Shweta Suryavanshi,
aged about 03 years, sustained grievous injuries and her left leg
was amputated from the thigh. He remained hospitalized for
approximately 30 days. The disability certificate (Ex.P-92),
assessing the permanent disability of the appellant at 80%, has
been duly supported by the testimony of Dr. R.L. Thakur. However,
the Tribunal has assessed the permanent disability of the
appellant at 70%, which is undisputed.
7. As regards compensation towards the cost of an artificial
limb/prosthetic leg, it is undisputed that the Tribunal has not
awarded any amount under this head. The loss of a limb cannot be
adequately compensated in monetary terms; nevertheless, the

4
injured person is entitled to reasonable pecuniary compensation
towards the purchase of an artificial limb and its maintenance and
replacement, as may be required during her lifetime. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Shankar Dutt v. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1193,
in para-5.9.3 held as under:
“While the loss of leg cannot be compensated, the appellant
could be paid pecuniary compensation towards the
purchase of the prosthetic leg and its repairs. It would tend
to do justice. This consideration is indeed a part of
determining the just and fair compensation. Therefore, this
Court is of the view that Rs.10,00,000 should be awarded
to the appellant towards the cost and maintenance for the
artificial let he will require during his lifetime. This is the
minimum amount which he is qualified for as part of the
compensation payable under this head to the appellant-
claimant.”
8. In the light of the aforesaid judgment and having regard to the
nature of the amputation, the age and circumstances of the
appellant, and her lifelong need for an artificial limb, this Court
considers it just and proper to award a consolidated sum of
₹ 5,00,000/- towards the cost, maintenance and replacement of the
prosthetic limb during her lifetime.
9. Further, considering the fact that there are some expenses for
which it is not possible to obtain a bill or receipt. The father had to
attend to the care of his injured child, which resulted in a loss of
income for him and also considering the nature and severity of the
injuries sustained by the minor injured, the period of
hospitalization (30 days) and treatment, and the continuing
consequences of the amputation, this Court finds that the
amounts awarded by the Tribunal under certain other heads are
also inadequate and require enhancement. Accordingly, the
compensation is reassessed as follows:
S.
No
Compensation
awarded by the
Compensation
Heads of Compensation
reassessed by
.
Tribunal
this Court
Towards medical
1. 1,21,190/- 1,50,000/-
expenses
2. Towards attendant 2,80,800/- 2,80,800/-

5
3. Towards nutritious diet 27,000/- 50,000/-
Towards transport
4. 15,000/- 25,000/-
expenses
30,000x140/100
Towards loss of future
5.
earnings
x15x70%=
4,41,000/-
5,00,000/-
Physical and mental
6. 2,00,000/- 2,00,000/-
agony
7. Loss of amenities of life 1,00,000/- 3,00,000/-
Towards the loss of
8. 2,00,000/- 4,00,000/-
marriage prospects
Artificial limb, including
maintenance and
replacement
9.
Nil 5,00,000/-
Towards medical
10. Nil 1,00,000/-
expenses in future
Total Compensation ₹ 13,84,990/- ₹ 25,05,800/-
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the total compensation of
₹ 13,84,990/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to
₹ 25,05,800/-. Consequently, after deducting the amount already
awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant shall be entitled to an
additional compensation of ₹ 11,20,810/- . The said enhanced
amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal till its actual
realization. The remaining terms and conditions of the impugned
award shall remain unaltered.
11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award
stands modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.
12. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimants in writing
“the enhanced/additional amount” in this appeal as against the
award made by the concerned Tribunal. The said communication
be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal
workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid
of the concerned area wherein the claimants resides.
Sd/-
( Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
JUDGE
H.L. Sahu