Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 07 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant Rikhman Lal (victim) vs. Respondents: (1) Babloo (driver of truck No. M.H.-04/D.S./1913), (2) Santosh Singh Jaswant Singh Sandhu (owner of the same truck), and (3) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (insurer of the truck).
  • Proceedings: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (Award dated 17‑12‑2018, Claim Case No. 152/2012). The Tribunal had awarded Rs 6,48,000 with interest.
  • Appellant’s Contentions: Permanent disability assessed at 60% (Ex.P‑9) was inadequate; appellant’s right leg amputated below the knee, rendering functional disability 100%; compensation for loss of medical treatment, pain & suffering, transportation, special diet, attendant, future earning capacity, loss of amenities & enjoyment, and artificial limb not fully accounted.
  • Respondent No. 3 (Insurer) Position: The Tribunal correctly assessed disability at 60% and exonerated the insurer on the ground of lack of a valid permit for the offending vehicle.
  • Legal Precedents Cited: Supreme Court judgments in M. Paramesh Vs. VRL Logistics Ltd., Shankar Dutt Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Gauribai Vs. Savitadev, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corp., Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, and Amrit Paul Singh v. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. establishing the principle that functional disability, not merely medical percentage, determines loss of earning capacity, and that the “pay and recover” principle applies where insurer is initially liable.
  • Court’s Reasoning: Recognised distinction between physical and functional disability; affirmed that a below‑knee amputation for a salesman (occupation requiring standing and walking) results in 100% functional disability; applied Supreme Court principles to recompute loss of future earnings and other heads of loss.

Compensation Computation

| Head | Calculation Details | Amount |

| Future Prospect (Multiplier 15) | 72,000 × 15 = 10,80,000; 60% of that = 6,48,000; (+)40% = 33,600; Total 1,17,600 × 15 = 17,64,000; 100% = 17,64,000 + 50,000 = 1,814,000 | 1,814,000 |

| Transportation, Special Diet, Attendant | Nil + 100,000 | 100,000 |

| Medical Expenses | Nil + 100,000 | 100,000 |

| Other Non‑pecuniary Loss | Nil + 50,000 | 50,000 |

| Cost of Artificial Limb & Maintenance | Nil + 100,000 | 100,000 |

| Total Enhanced Compensation | Original award 6,48,000 + Additional components | 21,64,000 |

  • The court therefore enhanced the original award of Rs 6,48,000 to Rs 21,64,000, resulting in an additional payable amount of Rs 15,16,000.

Final Outcome

  • The appeal is allowed in part; the impugned award is modified to Rs 21,64,000.
  • Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Respondent No. 3) is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within three months of receipt of the order.
  • The additional amount shall attract interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim before the Tribunal until realization.
  • The insurer may recover the paid amount from the driver (Babloo) and the owner (Santosh Singh) under the “pay and recover” principle.
  • All other conditions of the original award remain unchanged.

Topics: Motor Accident Compensation, Disability Assessment, Insurance Liability