ROSHAN BAKHLA vs ROHIT BADAIK

1

CGHC010202702022 2026:CGHC:46082
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 764 of 2022
Roshan Bakhla S/o Late Imanvel Bakhla Aged About 35 Years R/o
Village Jaamtoli (Manitoli), Tahsil And District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.
(Claimant)
... Appellant.
versus
1 - Rohit Badaik S/o Gopal Ram Badaik Aged About 30 Years R/o
Utrichoura, Tahsil Jashpur (Owner).
2 - Vipin Tigga S/o Sukhdev Tigga Aged About 55 Years Occupation
Driver, R/o Village Bhalmanda, Tahsil And District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.
(Driver).
... Respondent(s)
The date which the
The date when
The date when the
case is reserved for
Judgment is
Judgment is uploaded
order
pronounced
09-10-2026 30-10-2026 30-10-2026
For Appellant-Claimant Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocate on behalf of
Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate
For Respondents None.
Hon'ble Shri Santosh Sharma, Judge
C A V Judgment
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has
been preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of the

2
amount of compensation, challenging the legality and validity of the
impugned award dated 11.04.2022 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Jashpur, C.G (in short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case
No.15/2021, whereby the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of
Rs.1,01,694/- to the appellant-claimant.
2. Relevant facts for disposal of this appeal are that on 11.12.2019 at
residence of Victor Minj, paddy threshing work was being carried out by
means of a thresher machine attached to tractor engine bearing
Registration No. CG-14-MH-5711. During course of said work, Ranjit,
who was engaged in threshing the paddy, asked the appellant to assist
him and accordingly the appellant was feeding bundles of paddy into
the thresher machine. At that time, Vipin Tigga, driver of tractor engine,
allegedly operated the thresher machine attached thereto in a rash and
negligent manner, as a result of which, appellant’s right hand was
severed near the elbow, causing him to lose consciousness. Appellant
was immediately taken to the District Hospital, Jashpur, where he was
referred to the NH MMI Narayana Superspeciality Hospital, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh, where he remained admitted from 16.12.2019 to
30.12.2019. On the basis of report lodged by the informant-Roshan
Bakhla, an offence under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal
Code was registered against the accused driver.
Appellant-claimant has filed a claim application/petition before the
3.
Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.36,97,794/- under various
heads stating that at the time of the alleged accident, appellant was a

3
healthy person aged about 35 years and was earning Rs.10,000/- per
month by working as a labourer and engaging in agricultural activities.
4. Non-applicant Nos.1 & 2/owner and driver of tractor engine
(respondent No.1 and 2 herein) filed reply to the claim application and
denied the adverse averments made therein.
After considering the pleadings and evidence adduced by the
5.
respective parties, the learned Tribunal awarded a total sum of
Rs.1,01,694/- as compensation to the claimant and fastened liability to
satisfy the amount of compensation upon respondent Nos.1 and 2,
jointly and severally.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has failed
to appreciate that, owing to the injuries sustained in the accident, the
appellant is unable to continue his business/work and has suffered a
loss of income. The Tribunal ought to have assessed the compensation
by taking into consideration the loss of income and loss of future
earning capacity suffered by the appellant as a result of the accident.
The appellant has sustained 70% permanent disability, as his right
hand was completely amputated in the accident, thereby severely
impairing his ability to perform his day-to-day activities and carry on his
business. However, the Tribunal has failed to award adequate
compensation commensurate with the nature and extent of the
permanent disability suffered by the appellant. The amount of
Rs.30,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering is grossly inadequate,
having regard to the nature and severity of the injuries and permanent

4
disability sustained by the appellant. The amount of Rs.71,694/-
awarded towards medical expenses is also on lower side. The Tribunal
has failed to take into consideration the appellant's future prospects
and the adverse impact of the permanent disability on his future
earning capacity. As such, the impugned award be suitably modified
and the amount of compensation be enhanced in accordance with law.
7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records with
utmost circumspection.
8. As per main pleading in the claim petition, main issue raised in this
miscellaneous appeal for adjudication is, whether the award passed by
the Tribunal is just, reasonable and proper ? In this regard, this Court
has considered two important points, ie, (1.) Sources of income of
claimant and (2) the ratio of disability in respect of work of claimant.
9. Now, point No.1 is being considered. As per pleadings in claim petition,
at the time of the alleged accident, appellant was working as a labourer
and also doing agricultural work and thereby earning Rs.10,000/- per
month. Claim of the claimant with regard to labour work appears to be
trustworthy as contents of FIR (Ex.A-01) itself shows that he was
engaged as labourer at that point of time, but it cannot be said that he
earned Rs.10,000/- per month from his labour work, hence, it would be
appropriate to adopt unskilled wages rate prevailing at that point of
time as per the Chhattisgarh Minimum Wages Notification issued by
the office of Labour Commissioner, Chhattisgarh. Hence, considering
the age of the deceased, his occupation and the year of accident i.e.
2019, this Court assessed the monthly income of the deceased at

5
Rs.8,600/-. Though the claimant has claimed that he was also working
agricultural work, but he failed to substantiate this claim by adducing
cogent and reliable evidence.
10. Now, point No.2 is being taken into consideration with regard to
percentage of disability in respect of work. Learned Tribunal
determined the percentage of disability as 70% but did not take into
account its effect on whole body as well as loss of earning. A perusal of
the impugned award reveals that the Tribunal has failed to consider the
impact of the disability on the claimant’s body as a whole. The Tribunal
ought to have assessed the extent of functional disability and its
consequential effect on the claimant’s future earning capacity. Upon a
person sustaining permanent disability in a motor accident, it is
incumbent upon the Tribunal to determine the extent of permanent
disability and assess the resultant loss of earning capacity, having
regard to the nature of the disability, its impact on the claimant’s
functional abilities, and the nature of the occupation pursued by the
claimant. The percentage of physical disability cannot, by itself, be
treated as equivalent to the percentage of loss of earning capacity; the
latter must be determined on the basis of the evidence available on
record and the facts and circumstances of the case.
11. While considering the issue of assessment of compensation on
account of disability, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Raj Kumar v.
Ajay Kumar & Anr. [(2011) 1 SCC 343], has observed as under:
“ 9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the
Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not,

6
with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate
states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an
extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45%
permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent
of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a
percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be
assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there
is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80%
permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent
of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140%
(that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have
suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total
thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with
reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100%.”
12. Further, in case of Sarnam Singh versus Shriram General Insurance
Company Limited [(2023) 8 SCC 193], the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed thus:-
“ 9 . The issue required to be considered in the present appeal
falls in a very narrow campus. It is with the reference to the
functional disability of the appellant for the purpose of
assessment of compensation. The fact remains that he suffered
injuries in a road accident on account of which his right lower
limb was amputated. This resulted in permanent disability. There
is a certificate produced by the appellant from Madan Mohan
Malviya Hospital, (Government of NCT Delhi) showing his
permanent physical disability at 85% with further note that the
condition is not likely to improve and no further reassessment is
recommended. The certificate was issued by a board of doctors
on 28-3-2014. As per the photograph of the appellant appearing
in the disability certificate, his right leg has been amputated

7
above the knee. The income of the appellant, his age and other
factors are not in dispute.
10. As to how compensation, in case where permanent disability
of an injured affects his functional disability, is to be assessed
has been considered by this Court, repeatedly. Reference can be
made to the judgment of this Court in Mohan Soni vs. Ram Avtar
Tomar And Others [(2012) 2 SCC 267]. In the aforesaid case the
injured was working as a cart puller. As a result of the accident,
his left leg was amputated. His permanent disability was
assessed at 60%. The Tribunal assessed the compensation
taking the loss of earning at 50% on the theory that he can still
do some other work while sitting. The High Court did not disturb
the finding regarding loss of income on account of disability. This
Court found that the Tribunal was in error in taking the loss of
earning at 50% as the injured was 55 years of age and it may be
difficult for him to find a job at that stage. In fact, any physical
disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with
reference to the nature of the work being performed by the
person who suffered disability. The same injury suffered by two
different persons may affect them in different ways. Loss of leg
by a farmer or a rickshaw puller may be end of the road as far as
his earning capacity is concerned. Whereas, in case of the
persons engaged in some kind of desk work in office, loss of leg
may have lesser effect. This Court enhanced the loss of earning
capacity from 50% to 90%.
11 . Applying the same principle to the case in hand, we find that
the appellant herein was working as a gunman with Bharat Hotel
Limited. On account of amputation of his right leg above the
knee, he was terminated from service w.e.f. 31.05.2015. It is not
a matter of dispute that a person with his right leg amputated
cannot perform the duty of a gunman. This is his functional
disability. He was 50 years & 5 months old at the time of

8
accident. Considering the aforesaid facts, in our view, the
Tribunal was right in assessing the loss of earning capacity of the
appellant at 100% and assessing the compensation accordingly.
The High Court was in error in reducing the loss of earning
capacity to 80%, relying upon the judgment of High Court,
despite there being a judgment of this Court available on the
issue.”
13. Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles and considering
the fact that in case at hand, claimant was working as labourer, his
right hand was amputated below elbow, he will not be able to do
physical work with full potential as was earlier done. So loss of
functional disability would be 70% also and compensation under the
head of loss of income must be awarded on the basis of above
mentioned ratio of disablement.
14. Effect of earning in future must be taken into consideration. With regard
to future prospects, in case of Sidram versus Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited, [(2023) 3 SCC 439], the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“ 31. It is now a well settled position of law that even in cases
of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor-
accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation
for future loss of income, amounts for future prospects as
well. We have come across many orders of different
tribunals and unfortunately affirmed by different High Courts,
taking the view that the claimant is not entitled to
compensation for future prospects in accident cases
involving serious injuries resulting in permanent
disablement. That is not a correct position of law. There is

9
no justification to exclude the possibility of compensation for
future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries
resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading
is illogical because it denies altogether the possibility of the
living victim progressing further in life in accident cases –
and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of
the victim’s death.
15. In view of the evidence available on record, the appellant suffered
permanent disability on account of amputation of right hand, which will
affect his earning for whole of his life, therefore, he is entitled for
addition of amount towards future prospects in his income for the
purpose of calculating amount of compensation. In the instant case, no
document of proof of age has been placed by the claimant, therefore,
age of claimant mentioned as 35 years in MLC (Ex.A-3) is taken into
consideration for computing of compensation. Income of claimant is
taken as Rs. 8,600/- per month as held above. By adding 40% of
income towards future prospect, total monthly income of claimant
comes to Rs. 12,040/- (8,600 + 40% of 8,600) and yearly income
comes to Rs. 1,44,480/- ( 12,040 x 12). As held above that claimant
suffered 70% loss of earning capacity, he will suffer annual loss of
income to the extent of Rs. 1,01,136/- (70% of 1,44,480). On the date
of accident, claimant was aged 35 years, therefore, as per Sarla
Verma and ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corp. [(2009) 6 SCC 121], by
applying multiplier of 16, total loss of income comes to Rs. 16,18,176/-
(1,01,136 x 16).

10
16. The Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs. 71,694/- and Rs. 30,000/-
towards medical expenses and pains & sufferings respectively.
17. Apart from this, looking to the period of treatment and nature of injury, it
would be appropriate to award Rs.20,000/- under the head of special
diet.
18. Claimant remained admitted in the MMI Narayana Super Specialty
Hospital, Raipur, CG and, thereafter, undergone further treatment. He
would have gone from his village-Jaamtoli (Manitoli), Jashpur to Raipur
by hiring a vehicle. So compensation of Rs.20,000/- is also awarded to
him under the head of transportation. In furtherance, compensation on
another head, ie, expenses of attendant is also awarded Rs.10,000/- to
the claimant.
19. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussions, observations and in light of
the above referred judgments of the Supreme Court, following
compensation is awarded to the claimant under the different heads :-
Sr.
Heads Compensation
awarded by the
Tribunal
Compensation
awarded by this
Court
No.
1 Loss of income Nil Rs. 16,18,176/-
2. Towards
Rs.71,694/- Rs. 71,694/-
medical
expenses
3. Towards pain
Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 30,000/-
and suffering

11
4. For
NIL Rs. 20,000/-
transportation
5. For Special diet NIL Rs. 20,000/-
6. For attendant NIL Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs.1,01,694/- Rs. 17,69,870/-
Now, the appellant/claimant is entitled to get compensation of
20.
Rs .17,78,470 /- instead of Rs.1,01,694/-. The additional amount of
compensation shall carry interest at the rate as awarded by the
Tribunal. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain
intact.
21. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is
modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.

Sd/-
(Santosh Sharma)
Judge
J/pathak/-
AVANISH
KUMAR
PATHAK
Digitally signed
by AVANISH
KUMAR PATHAK
Date: 2026.10.30
17:52:31 +0530