Chhattisgarh High Court upholds and clarifies “just compensation” jurisprudence, affirming 100% permanent disability even where the claimant continued employment post-injury; compensation may exceed claimed amount if warranted by evidence. This is binding precedent for Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs) in Chhattisgarh and has persuasive value elsewhere.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | MAC/1588/2017 of Rupesh Valde (Died and Deleted) Vs Mithlesh Sahu |
| CNR | CGHC010099782017 |
| Date of Registration | 20-11-2017 |
| Decision Date | 03-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | PARTLY ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value | Binding in Chhattisgarh; persuasive elsewhere |
| Type of Law | Motor Accident / Compensation Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court affirmed that amputation of both legs, established by medical evidence and photographs, amounts to 100% permanent disability, even if the injured remained employed. It relied on Supreme Court guidance stating “just compensation” may exceed the claimed amount where warranted by evidence. The compensation was enhanced accordingly under heads such as special diet, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities. The award of 100% disability was not negated merely by continued employment or promotion post-accident. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
Emphasized Supreme Court dicta that compensation must be “just”, potentially exceeding the amount claimed if evidence so warrants; disability assessment is based on functional impairment, not employment status alone |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Appellant suffered amputation of both legs in an accident caused by rash and negligent driving; was working as a potter (railway employee); 100% disability certificate issued; continued in employment but claimed inability to perform as before; original award partly enhanced on appeal |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and MACTs in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court affirms that 100% permanent disability can be awarded based on medical evidence and practical incapacity, irrespective of continued government employment or even promotion post-injury.
- Courts have a duty to assess and award “just compensation” founded upon the evidence, which may exceed the sum originally claimed in the petition.
- Reliance on Supreme Court guidance strengthens the position that less valuation in the claim petition does not constrain the awarding of proper compensation.
- Enhanced amounts granted for special diet, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities—lawyers should closely analyze heads under which compensation may be sought.
- Insurers’ arguments about retained employment do not, by themselves, suffice to deny absolute disability assessments if functional incapacity is demonstrated.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined medical records, disability certificates, and photographic evidence, all establishing above-knee amputation of both legs and 100% disability.
- It rejected the insurance company’s argument that continued employment signified partial rather than total disability, holding that functional capacity and ability to perform duties as before are the proper test.
- Judicial reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s rulings in Hare Krushna Mahanta (2025 SCC Online SC 262) and Meena Devi (2023) 1 SCC 204, which state that “just compensation” must be awarded, and courts are not restricted by the sum claimed in the petition.
- The principle that “just compensation” may exceed what is sought by the claimant was particularly highlighted.
- Enhanced compensation was granted under heads of special diet, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities, holding that the prior award was inadequate in light of the evidence.
- The existing liability of the insurer was not disturbed; enhancement accrued 6% interest from the date of the appellate award.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Claimant)
- Appellant suffered amputation of both legs above the knees, resulting in 100% permanent disability.
- Original compensation awarded was inadequate and should be enhanced under various heads.
- Appellant would have continued working until superannuation age in absence of accident-induced incapacity.
Respondent No. 2 (Owner)
- Opposed enhancement of compensation (detailed arguments not specified).
Respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company)
- Compensation already awarded by Tribunal was reasonable and adequate; no basis for enhancement.
- Claimant continued employment and was even promoted; 100% disability finding was erroneous.
- Full functional incapacitation was not established to the insurer’s satisfaction; sought revisitation of total disability finding.
Factual Background
On 16.02.2013, the appellant was riding a motorcycle when struck from behind by a dumper driven rashly by the first respondent, resulting in both his legs being crushed and requiring amputation above the knee. At the time, he was a 30-year-old potter working for the railway. A disability certificate confirmed 100% permanent disability. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation, which was challenged by the claimant as inadequate. The claimant subsequently died, and his wife was substituted as a legal representative.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Basis for the appeal.
- The Court relied on Supreme Court interpretation of statutory compensation provisions, holding that “just compensation” under the Act may exceed claimed sums if supported by evidence.
- No “reading down” or expansive/narrow interpretation of statutory language; primary reliance was on the need for fairness and adequacy in compensation awards.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are present or recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural precedents or innovations were set in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Reaffirms Supreme Court precedent on just compensation and disability assessment.
Citations
- Hare Krushna Mahanta vs. Himadari Sahu & Another, 2025 SCC Online SC 262
- Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto, (2023) 1 SCC 204