Partly allowed

Shanker Singh v. Ramesh Singh and Others

Chhattisgarh HC2 Sept 2011MA/1005/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the appellant in a motor accident claim case. While acknowledging the insurer supported the lower award, the court held that the Tribunal failed to compensate for loss of income/leave.

What did the court decide?

Further sum of Rs.11,000 inclusive of interest granted to the appellant in addition to the earlier award of Rs.14,000.

Shanker Singh Vs Ramesh Singh and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

^' ^x :?%1..sw':rf?

¶2

Htfi S

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

DIVISION BENCH

¶5

CORAM:	HON'BLE SH HON'BLE SH Misc.A	RI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & RI N.K. AGARWAL, J. ppeal No. 1005 of2004
Appellant Claimant		Shanker Singh, s/o Dhursai aged about 47 years, by occupation Service (S.E.C.L.) R/o. Vishrampur Tahsil Surajpur C.G. VERSUS
Responde Driver	nts 1.	Ramesh Singh, s/o Prem Singh aged about 34 years, occupation driver r/o. Namnakala, P.S. and Tahsil Ambikapur, district Sarguja C.G.
Owner	2.	Kamrujama, s/o Unknown occupation vehicle owner, r/o Mominpura P.S. & Tehsil Ambikapur district Sarguja C.G.
Insurer	3	The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, Ambikapur, district Sarguja C.G.

¶6

Appeal under Sectjon^l73 of thelVlotor Vehicles Act.

¶7

Present: Shri D.N. Prajapati, counsel for the appellant. Shri Jaiprakash Shukla, counsel for respondent No.2. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.3.

¶8

ORDER

¶9

ind (02naSeptember,2011)

¶10

The following order of the Court was passed by

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.

i»a

M.A.No. 1005of2004

This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, district Sarguja (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 09.09.2004, passed in Claim Case No.04/2004.

¶15

As against the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 17.08.2001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.14,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

¶16

The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Jeep bearing registration No.M.P.278/5732, liable to pay compensation to the claimant.

¶17

As the insurer of the above offending vehicle Jeep has not filed any appeal challenging the above finding recorded by the Tribunal, the same now has attained finality. 5) The Tribunal considering the number and nature of the injuries proved^{tohavebeensustainedbytheclaimantinthemotoraccident} and the fact that the claimant admittedly did not spent(.any sum towards medical expenses, awarded Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.5,000/towards fracture of his right hand; and Rs.4,000/- towards special diet, conveyance and attendant. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.14,000/- as compensatipn to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the motor

¶18

\S SS.

¶19

M.A.NO. 1005 of 2004

¶20

accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.14,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

¶21

Shri D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any sum towards loss of income/ leave during the period of treatment; and in awarding low compensation of Rs. 14,000'- only.

¶22

Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Cpmpany Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Jeep, on the other hand, contended that as the daimant admittedly was not required to spend any sum on his treatment, the compensation of Rs.14,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶23

Shri Jaiprakash Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No.2 Kamrujama, the owner of the offending vehicle Jeep, also supported the award.

¶24

Claimant Shanker Singh was aged about 47 years on the date of the accident. At the relevant time he was working as dresser in S.E.C.L. Hospital. The claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fracture in the motor accident is borne out from the evidence available on record. It is true that the claimant was treated in S.E.C.L. Hospital and as such was not required tospend any sum towards medical expenses. It has come in the evidence of the claimant that on account of the injuries and fractures sustained by

¶25

M.A.NO. 1005 of 2004

¶26

him in the motor accident he was compelled to take leave from 17.08.2001 to 08.10.2001. The Tribunal certainly has erred in not awarding any sum in that behalf.

¶27

The compensation of Rs.14,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, in our opinion, is certainly on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced suitably.

¶28

Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that further award of Rs.11,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.14,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the

¶29

present case.

¶30

i-'|i 1

¶31

¶32

The appeal filed by the appellanV claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is allowed in part. The claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.11,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sum of Rs.14,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶33

1. Respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of

¶34

Rs.11,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal.

¶35

1. No order as to costs.

sd/Chief Justice

Sd/-
^•^gra^i
Ige

nimmi

d**uunaBNMati

Shanker Singh v. Ramesh Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanker Singh v. Ramesh Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santram Vs Rajendra Singh and Ors.

Smt.Phoolwati Vs Thangraj and Others

Jai Kumar Borkar Vs Thangraj and Others

Uma Bai and Anr. Vs Ravi Kumar Aditya and Ors.

Praveen Chand Surana and Ors. Vs Dwarka Prasad Soni Thr.Legal Repre.

Mohd Moinuddin Vs Bashir and Others