RADHE SORI vs YAGYAVAL

1

CGHC010196342023 2026:CGHC:45801

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1027 of 2023
1 - The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Station Road
Naya Deepak Nagar, Malviya Nagar, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
(Insurance Company Of Offending Vehicle Truck No. CG-07-CA-5764)
--- Appellant
versus
1 - Radhe Sori (Minor), S/o - Chetan Sori, Aged About 2 Years
Represented Through Father And Natural Guardian Shri Chetan Sori
S/o -Shivkumar Sori, Aged 25 Years, R/o Village Mujalgondi, Police
Station Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh. ……. Claimant
2 - Yagyanval S/o Ghanshyam Nirmal, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village
Mahkakhurd, Police Station Utai. District Durg Chhattisgarh. ( Driver Of
The Offending Vehicle Tuck No. CG-07-CA-5764)
3 - Zakir Ahmed Kazi S/o Late Amiruddin Kazi. R/o Ayappa Nagar,
Smriti Nagar, Chowki, Police Station Supela, Bhilai District Durg
Chhattisgarh. (Registered Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Tuck No.
CG-07-CA-5764)
--- Respondents
And
MAC No. 548 of 2023
1 - Radhe Sori S/o Chetan Sori Aged About 2 Years Minor Through
Natural Guardian Father Shri Chetan Sori S/o Shivkumar Sori, Aged

2
About 25 Years, R/o Village - Mujalgondi, Thana - Gurur,, District :
Balod, Chhattisgarh
--- Appellant
Versus
1 - Yagyaval S/o Ghanshyam Nirmal Aged About 24 Years R/o Village -
Mahkakhurd, Thana - Utai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
2 - Zakir Ahmad Kazi S/o Late Amiruddin Kazi R/o Ayappa Nagar, Smriti
Nagar Chauki, Thana Supela, Bhilai,, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
3 - Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch
Office - Station Road, Naya Deepak Nagar, Malviya Nagar, Durg,
District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
For Appellant in MAC
No.1027/2023 and for
Respondent No.3 in MAC
No.548/2023
: Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate
For Appellant in MAC
No.548/2023 and for
Respondent No.1 in
1027/2023
: Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate
For Respondent No. 2 & 3
: None
in MAC No. 1027/2023 and
for Respondent Nos.1& 2 in
MAC No.548/2023
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
(29.10.2026)
1. In compliance of this Court’s order dated 12.10.2026, Mr. Jitendra
Kumar Sinha, Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd,
appeared before this Court. His presence is marked.

3
2. Since the aforesaid appeals arise out of the same accident and
the same award, they are being disposed of by this common
order.
3. MAC No.548/2023 has been filed by the appellant/claimant
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act
of 1988”) seeking enhancement in the compensation amount and
MAC No.1027/2023 has been filed by the Insurance Company
against the impugned award dated 17.02.2023 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, District Balod,
Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.
13/2020, whereby the Claims Tribunal allowed the claimant’s
application and awarded Rs.9,55,035/- along with interest @ 9%
per annum for the injuries sustained to the claimant Radhe Sori,
fastening liability upon the Insurance Company to satisfy the
award amount.
4. Brief facts of the case are that, on 17.03.2019, the claimant, while
standing on the platform (chabutra) in front of his own house
situated at Village Mujaalgondi, was hit by the offending Hyva
Truck bearing Registration No. CG-07-CA-5764, owned by Zakir
Ahmed Kazi and driven by Yagyanaval. The driver of the said
vehicle was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and,
while doing so, broke the platform and struck the claimant,
thereby causing the accident and inflicting serious injuries upon
him. Thereafter, the claimant was taken to the Primary Health

4
Centre, Charama, where he was provided with initial medical
treatment. Looking to his serious condition, he was subsequently
shifted to Christian Hospital, Dhamtari, and thereafter admitted to
Ramakrishna Hospital for further treatment. During the course of
treatment, the claimant underwent surgery and remained
hospitalised for a period of 30 days. It is further averred in the
claim petition that the claimant’s left leg and left hand were
extensively degloved, resulting in the complete loss of the
muscles of his hand and leg, and that he has become completely
disabled in respect of his left hand and left leg. Upon receipt of
information regarding the accident, Crime No. 79/2019 was
registered at Police Station Gurur against the driver of the
aforesaid Hyva Truck bearing Registration No. CG-07-CA-5764
for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of
the Indian Penal Code.
5. A claim petition was filed by the claimant Radhe Sori through his
natural guardian Father claiming a compensation of
Rs.20,00,000/- inter alia pleading that on date of the accident, i.e.,
17.03.2019, the claimant Radhe Sori, was aged about 2 years
and, as a result of the accident, has suffered permanent disability,
remains under mental stress and has been deprived of the income
that he could have earned by securing a government job in the
future, as well as of a bright future. It was further pleaded that on
account of the grievous injuries sustained by the claimant, he shall
have to bear the expenses incurred towards medical treatment,

5
attendant charges, transportation expenses, loss of future earning
capacity, and future medical expenses. The loss and damage
suffered by the applicant as a result of the aforesaid accident can
never be fully compensated in the future.
6. Pleading of the claimant has, however, been denied by the
respondent/insurance company.
7. After evaluating the evidence available on record, the Tribunal
decided the claim petition in favour of the claimant and awarded
the above stated compensation in favour of the claimant and
against the respondent/Insurance Company.
In MAC No.1027/2023
8. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submit that
the burn injuries allegedly sustained by the claimant are not
attributable to the accident in question. It was further submitted
that the disability certificate (Ex.P/11) does not contain any
reference to the burn injuries and, therefore, the claimant cannot
be considered to have suffered 100% permanent disability.
Accordingly, it was contended that assessment of the claimant's
disability at 100% would not be justified and therefore, the
impugned award may be modified suitably.
In MAC No.548/2023
9. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant submits that the
learned Tribunal has erred in awarding meager amount of

6
compensation under other heads. Learned counsel placing
reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Kumaresh Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance
Company Limited & another reported in (2011) 12 SCC 488 ,
submits that the learned Tribunal has failed in not awarding
compensation towards pain & suffering, future medical expenses,
loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, and loss of marital
prospects, particularly when the claimant remained hospitalized
for more than two months and suffered permanent disability.
Therefore, it is prayed that the compensation awarded by the
learned Tribunal may be suitably enhanced.
10. There is no representation on behalf of the driver and owner of the
offending vehicle.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the claimant and Insurance
Company, considered their rival submissions made herein-above
and went through the records with utmost circumspection.
12. In the case in hand, the claimant is aged about 2 years who
suffered permanent disability which is evident from disability
certificate (Ex.P-11) and evidence of Dr. R.R. Mandle (AW-2) who
has deposed that the injured, Radhe Sori, was brought before the
District Medical Board for medical examination. Upon
examination, the Board found an external scar and deformity of
the left forearm with the hand, as well as stiffness and an external

7
scar on the left knee. He has also deposed that the nature of the
disability suffered by the injured is permanent. Further, in
paragraph 3 of his deposition, he has stated that the injured would
require assistance in performing his daily activities in the future,
would not be able to undertake strenuous work, and had
developed deformities in both his hand and leg.
13. The father of the claimant had pleaded that due to the accident,
there is gross downfall in the income of the his son (claimant) by
Rs.15,000/-, but the learned Tribunal recorded the finding that the
it is impossible for a child aged 2-3 years to have a monthly
income of Rs.15,000/-. In such a situation, the learned Tribunal
assessed the notional income of claimant at Rs.30,000/-, which in
the facts and circumstances of the case and governing the issue,
is found to be proper and is hereby maintained. Though the
disability certificate (Ex.P-11) was give to the tune of 60% but the
learned Tribunal has found it to be 100% loss of earning capacity.
14. As regards the future prospect, the learned Tribunal, considering
the age of the father of the claimant to be 25 years and the nature
of job at the time of accident, has rightly taken future prospect of
40%, applied the multiplier of 18 and further taking into
consideration the medical documents (Ex.P-12, 13, 19, 20, 23 to
26, 31 to 33, 35 to 37, 39 to 49, 54 to 57, 59 to 99 an Ex.P-140)
has awarded Rs.1,69,035/- towards medical expenses along with
Rs.30,000/- towards special diet, helper and transportation.

8
However, the learned Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards
pain & suffering, future treatment, marriage prospect and attainder
for whole life.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Narendra Singh Vs.
Nishant Sharma and Another , reported in (2015) 14 SCC 353 ,
has observed as under :-
14. "Under conventional heads, following the
decision of Kumaresh Vs. National Insurance Co.
Ltd. (2011) 12 SCC 488, we award Rs. 50,000/- has
been awarded for pain and suffering since the
appellant cannot walk, sit, squat or run freely and he
is not able to live a normal life, Rs. 1,00,000/-for
medical expenses for whole life since he has to
survive with artificial limb which might require
replacement from time to time. Considering the
appellant's drastically reduced chances of mobility,
deprivation from attending social functions, further
Rs. 3,00,000/- awarded for loss of amenities and
enjoyment of life including loss of marital prospects
and marital happiness, adding Rs. 50,000/-
conveyance charges and cost of attendant in his old
age and Rs. 50,000/- for food and nourishment.
Hence, in total, a sumo f Rs. 16,28,840/- is awarded
as compensation in favour of the appellant."
16. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sidram Vs.
Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited
and Another , reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439 , has held in para 113
as under:

9
"113. Before we close this matter, it needs to be
underlined, as observed in Pappu Deo Yadav Vs.
Naresh Kumar (2022) 13 SCC 790: 2020 SCC
Online SC 752 that courts should be mindful that a
serious injury not only permanently imposes
physical limitations and disabilities but too often
inflicts deep mental and emotional scars upon the
victim. The attendant trauma of the victim's having
to live in a world entirely different from the one she
or he is born into, as an invalid and with degrees of
dependence on others, robbed of complete personal
choice or autonomy, should forever be in the
Judge's mind, whenever tasked to adjudge
compensation claims. Severe limitations inflicted
due to such injuries undermine the dignity (which is
now recognized as an intrinsic component of the
right to life under Article of the individual, thus
depriving the person of the essence of the right toa
wholesome life which she or he had lived, hitherto.
From the world of the able bodies, the victim is
thrust into the world of the disabled, itself most
discomfiting and unsettling. If courts nit-pick and
award niggardly amounts oblivious of these
circumstances, there is resultant affront to the
injured victim.”
17. In the matter of Kumaresh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held in para 12 as under :-
“12. The appellant is aged just 20 years and one
of his legs has been amputated below the knee. It
will not only severely affect his future prospects of
earning, but he will also have to be permanently

10
disabled for life and suffer the necessary
discomforts accompanying living without a leg. It
greatly minimises his chances of getting married. In
light of all this, we enhance the amount awarded for
loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, including
loss of marital prospects, to Rs.3,00,000/-. We also
enhance the amount awarded for medical expenses
for his whole life to Rs.1,00,000/-, conveyance
charges to Rs.50,000/- and for food and
nourishment to Rs.50,000/- considering the nature
of injuries sustained by the appellant. The
compensation awarded by the High Court under the
other heads is sustained.”
18. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion in the light of aforesaid
judicial pronouncement, this Court assess the compensation in
the following manner.:-
Sr.
No.
Heads Compensation
awarded by the
Tribunal
Compensation
awarded by this
Court
1 Income Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 30,000/-
2 Future prospect (+)40% (i.e. Rs.
12,000/-) = 42,000/-
(+)40% (i.e. Rs.
12,000/-) = 42,000/-
3 Multiplier (x) 18 = 7,56,000/- (x) 18 = 7,56,000/-
4 Towards Pain &
Suffering
Nil. Rs.1,00,000/-
5 Towards
Medical
Expenses
Rs.1,69,035/- Rs.1,69,035/-
6 Towards
Special Diet,
Helper &
Transportation
Rs.30,000/- Rs.30,000/-
7 Towards Future
Treatment
Nil Rs.1,00,000/-
8 Towards Nil Rs.1,00,000/-

11
Marriage
Prospects
9 Towards
Attainder for
whole life
Nil Rs.3,00,000/-
Total Rs. 9,55,035/- Rs. 15,55,035/-
19. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs.15,55,035/-.
After deducting Rs.9,55,035/- as awarded by the Tribunal, the
enhancement would be Rs.6,00,000/-.
20. As regards submission of learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company in MAC No.1027/2023 that the burn
injuries sustained by the claimant are not attributable to the
accident in question as the same does not contain any reference
in disability certificate (Ex.P/11) and the claimant cannot be
considered to have suffered 100% permanent disability, I do not
find any force in the argument of learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company for the reason that the total medical
bills produced on record pertain to the injuries sustained by the
claimant in the accident in question and the assessment of
disability made by the learned Tribunal on the basis of evidence of
Dr. R.R. Mandle (AW-2) appears to be proper and justified. As
such, the MAC No.1027/2023 preferred by the
appellant/Insurance Company deserves to be dismissed and is
hereby dismissed .

12
21. In the result, MAC No.548/2023 preferred by the
appellant/claimant is partly allowed . The appellant/claimant shall
be entitled to receive Rs. 6,00,000/- in addition to what has
already been awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced
amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim application before the tribunal till its realization.
The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest
of the conditions shall remain intact.
22. The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimant in
writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award
made by the Tribunal below. 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
Digitally signed by
VIJAY BHARATRAO
pekde
PEKDE
Date: 2026.10.30
10:55:40 +0530