BHANU PRASAD CHOURASIYA vs SANTOSH JAIN

1
Digitally signed
by SHUBHAM
SINGH
RAGHUVANSHI
Date: 2026.10.31
14:15:13 +0530
SHUBHAM
SINGH
RAGHUVANSHI

CGHC010171132024 2026:CGHC:45859

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1228 of 2024
Bhanu Prasad Chourasiya S/o Late Salgu Chourasiya, Aged
About 57 Years Caste Barai, R/o Hatkachora, Vivekanand Ward
No.30, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) ---- (Claimant)
... Appellant
versus
1 - Santosh Jain S/o Veer Prakash Jain, Aged About 30 Years
R/o. Near Sonal Kirana Store, Durga Mandir, Shanti Nagar
Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.)----
(Driver And Owner)
2 - United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch
Manager, Anupama Chowk, Jagdalpur, District Bastar
(C.G.)------ (Insurer)
--- Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate
For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate

2
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
(29.10.2026)
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (for short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the
appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of
compensation, challenging the impugned award dated
23.02.2024, passed in Claim Case No.72/2020, whereby
the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of
Rs.5,30,679/- to the appellant for the injuries sustained by
him in a road accident which took place on 05.01.2020.
2. Learned counsel for the injured/appellant would submit
that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding a
lesser amount of compensation. The Tribunal has not
granted any amount towards loss of income. In the said
accident, the injured/appellant sustained fracture on his
left leg. As per the disability certificate (Ex. P-115), proved
by Dr. Lakhan Thakur (AW-2), the injured sustained 70%
disability of his left leg and 24% disability of the whole
body. However, the Tribunal has not held any functional
disability and thereby not awarded any amount towards
loss of income. It is submitted that the appellant/injured is
an Advocate and since his profession is a legal profession,
the disability of his leg would certainly cause hindrance in
his profession as he has to attend various Courts. In such
circumstances, not considering the functional disability by
the Tribunal is erroneous and not sustainable. He further
submits that no amount has been awarded under the head
of future treatment. The injured was admitted in hospital
for about 45 days and was treated in different hospitals, but
the loss of income during the period of treatment has been

3
considered only for four months, whereas the same ought
to have been considered at least for six months. It is also
submitted that under other heads also, a meagre amount
has been assessed, which deserves to be enhanced.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 / Insurance
Company would submit that the Claims Tribunal, after
appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available
on record, has rightly awarded the compensation amount.
No loss of income has been proved by the appellant. No
financial loss has been incurred by him. The impugned
award is just and proper and requires no interference.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered
their rival submissions made herein-above and went
through the records with utmost circumspection.
5. On perusal of the record, it is found that the Claims
Tribunal, on the basis of the Income Tax Return, in
paragraph 21 of the award, has assessed the annual
income of the injured as Rs. 6,25,480/-. Injured Bhanu
Prasad Chourasiya, in his statement recorded before the
Tribunal, has stated that his left leg was fractured due to
the accident, an operation was performed and a plate was
inserted, he was admitted for about 45 days and was
treated in different hospitals. Due to the injury, he was
unable to walk for a long time, there is persistent pain in
his leg and the strength of his left leg has diminished. Dr.
Lakhan Thakur (AW-2), who proved the permanent
disability certificate Ex. P-115, has also stated that the
injured has difficulty in walking, he is unable to sit cross-
legged, there is stiffness in the left leg and since he has to
attend different Courts for advocacy work, the disability of
his leg would certainly be a reason for loss of income to

4
some extent. In such circumstances, not considering the
disability would not be proper. Therefore, looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case, the functional
disability for the whole body is assessed at 10%.
6. The annual income of the injured as assessed by the
Tribunal is Rs. 6,25,480/-. His age was considered by the
Tribunal as 55 years.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company
submits that in the claim petition, the claimant himself has
mentioned his age as 57 years.
8. The Claims Tribunal, on the basis of medical documents,
has considered the age of the injured as 55 years. However,
in medical documents, the age is mentioned on an
approximate basis. Since the injured himself has stated his
age as 57 years in his claim petition, his age at the time of
accident is determined as 57 years.
9. In light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
rendered in the matters of National Insurance Company
1
Ltd. V. Pranay Sethi , Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi
2
Transport Corporation & Ors and Magma General
3
,
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors
10% towards future prospects should be added to his
annual income. His annual income was Rs.6,25,480/-.
After addition of 10% Future Prospect (Rs. 62,548/-), his
annual income would be Rs. 6,88,028/-.
10. From the annual income of the deceased, there will be
statutory deduction towards income tax. The income tax
slab for the financial year 2019-2020 was as follows:
1 (2017) 16 SCC 680
2 (2009) 6 SCC 121
3 (2018) 18 SCC 130

5
Income Tax Slabs
Income Tax
Taxable
Total Tax
in the FY 2010-11
Rates
Income
0 to 2,50,000/- nil nil nil
2,50,001 to
5% Rs.2.50,000/- Rs. 12,500/-
5,00,000/-
5,00,001 to
20% Rs.1,88,028/- Rs. 37,605/-
10,00,000/-
Total 50,105/-
11. In view of the same, after deduction of income tax, the annual
income comes to Rs.6,37,923/- (688028-50105).
12. In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Sarla Verma (Supra) and Pranay Sethi (Supra) and also
considering the age of the deceased as 57 years, the multiplier
of 9 should be applied. After applying the said multiplier, the
amount would be Rs.57,41,307/- 1
0% functional disability
thereof i.e. Rs. 5,74,130/- in round figure.
13. Furthermore, as the injured was admitted for 45 days
in hospitals, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,08,494/-
towards loss of income for four months during treatment,
which is proper. Under the head of medical bills, Rs.
2,04,425/- has been awarded, which is enhanced to Rs.
2,20,000/-, since there are some bills which are not
possible to preserve. Under the head of pain and suffering,
Rs. 40,000/- has been awarded, which is enhanced to Rs.
60,000/-. Under the head of transportation, Rs. 77,760/-
has been awarded, which is rounded off to Rs. 80,000/-,
since there are some bills which are not possible to
preserve. No amount has been awarded towards future
treatment, under which Rs. 50,000/- is awarded.
14. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is
computing the compensation as below:-

6
Sr.
Heads Compensation
Compensation
No.
awarded by the
awarded by this
Tribunal
Court
1 Income Rs. 6,25,480/-
Rs. 6,25,480/-
per annum
per annum
2. Future prospect NA (+)10% (i.e. Rs.
62548) =
6,88,028/-
3. Income (after
NA Rs.6,37,923/-
income tax
deductions)
4. Multiplier NA (x) 9 =
57,41,307/-
5. Functional


disability 10%
NA
Rs. 5,74,130/-
thereof
6. Loss during
Rs. 2,08,494/- Rs. 2,08,494/-
treatment
7. Medical Bills Rs. 2,04,425/- Rs.2,20,000/-
8. Pain and
Rs. 40,000/- Rs.60,000/-
suffering and
healthy diet,
assistance
9. Transportation 77,760/- Rs.80,000/-
10. Future
NA Rs.50,000/-
treatment
Total Rs. 5,30,679 /- Rs. 11,92,624 /-
15. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of
compensation of Rs.5,30,679/- awarded by the Claims
Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.11,92,624/-. Hence, after
deducting the amount of Rs.5,30,679/-, the appellant is
held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 06,61,945 /-.

7
The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest
@ 6% per annum from filing of the claim application before
the Claims Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the
conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.
16. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the
impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated
herein-above.
17. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimant in
writing “the enhanced 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 claimant resides.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
-Shubham