Injured Driver’s ₹1.9 Lakh Award Stands; Chhattisgarh HC Cites No Permanent Disability Or Fracture

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the appellant’s monthly income and compensation for loss of income was supported by the evidence

The court held

The Court held that the award was just and proper and that no further enhancement was warranted.

It also directed

It dismissed the appeal at the motion stage as devoid of merit.

01Facts

The appellant, injured in a road accident on 7 May 2019, challenged the award dated 4 January 2025 of the 6th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur.

¶ 5–6

The Tribunal awarded total compensation of ₹1,90,000, including ₹1,00,000 for treatment and medicines, ₹50,000 for loss of income, and amounts under other heads.

¶ 5–6

The appellant sought enhancement, contending that he earned ₹15,000 per month as a driver, required future treatment, and had received inadequate compensation.

¶ 1–4, 7

The High Court condoned the 38-day delay and heard the appeal at the admission stage.

¶ 1–4, 7

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Tribunal’s assessment of the appellant’s monthly income and compensation for loss of income was supported by the evidence

¶ 7, 10

ii.2. Whether the evidence of the injuries and medical expenses warranted enhancement, including compensation for future treatment or under other heads

¶ 7, 11–12

03Law Applied

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against an award of a Claims Tribunal.

¶ 5

In assessing compensation on appeal, the Court considered the evidence supporting the claimed income, injuries, treatment, and expenses; the judgment cites no further statutory provision or precedent.

¶ 10–12

It treated an income claim supported by a salary certificate as unsubstantiated where the certificate’s issuer was not examined, and assessed the award by reference to the evidence on record.

¶ 10–12

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173

04Reasoning

The Court upheld the Tribunal’s rejection of the claimed monthly salary of ₹15,000 because the issuer of salary certificate Ex. P-33 was not examined.

¶ 10

It found the Tribunal’s assessment of monthly income at ₹10,000 reasonable.

¶ 10

As to medical expenses and other heads, the appellant had produced bills totalling ₹1,13,474, but had not produced hospital admission or discharge records, evidence of permanent disability, or prescriptions for certain bills.

¶ 11–12

The Court also noted the absence of permanent disability and fracture and considered the injuries and medical expenses overall; it found no basis to enhance the award.

¶ 11–12