Partly allowed

Deendayal Pandey v. Durjan Singh and Others

Chhattisgarh HC10 Mar 2011MA/376/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The court held that the original award was on the lower side considering the claimant's permanent physical disability (amputation of thumb and two fingers) and increased it by Rs. 20,000.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed in part; the claimant is awarded an additional sum of Rs. 20,000 inclusive of interest on the enhanced compensation in addition to the original amount.

Deendayal Pandey Vs Durjan Singh and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶2

DIVISIONBENCH

¶3

CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶4

Misc. Appeal No. 376 of 2003

¶5

¶6

¶7

Appellant Claimant		Deendayal Pandey s/o Shri Ramnarayan Pandey, aged about 43 years, occupation Service, R/o. Block No. 24, Plot No. 13, Nehru Nagar, East, Bhilai, Tah. & district Durg C.G. VERSUS
ResDondents	1.	DijE-jan Singh s/o Johan Singh Chandrawanshi, aged about 31 years, driver, r/o. Amapara, Ambagarh, Chauki, Tah. Ambagarh- Chauki, district Rajnandgaon C.G.
	2.	Harjeet Singh Bhatia S/o Harbansh Singh Bhatia, aged about 42 years, occupation Mini Bus Transport, R/o Ambagarh Chauki, Tah. Ambagarh, Chauki, district Rajnandgaon C.G.
	3.	New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Registered & Main Office New India Assurance Building 87, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Fort, Mumbai, Tah. & District Mumbai (Ms) Divisional Office, through Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co., Project Automobiles Ke Samne, Thakkar Chambers, Power House, Bhilai, district Durg C.G.

¶8

MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OFTHE MOTORVEHICLESACT

¶9

Present: Shri Viprasen Agrawal, counsel for the appellant. Shri Prashant Jayaswal, Senior Counsel with Shri Shailendra Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3.

1 <f'y .i ^^•jf

ORDER

(10th IVIarch, 2011)

The following order of the Court was passed by

¶14

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.

¶15

AppellanV Claimant Deendayal Pandey is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidept Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 20.12.2002, passed in ClaimCase No.131/2001.

¶16

As against the compensation of Rs.13,84,000/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor VehiclesAct for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 15.02.2001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,29,900/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

¶17

The Tribunal considering the number and nature of the injuries proved to have been sustainedby the claimant in the motor accident and the amount proved to have been spenton his treatment, awarded Rs.36,400/towards medical expenses; Rs.27,500/- towards loss of earned leave of2 1/S months which the claimant was required to take during the period of his treatment; Rs.11,000/- towards conveyance and attendant; Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering; and Rs.50,000/- towards general damages. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.1,29,9007as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in

'^.

'f:^-/

•"'^sasss^'

the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensatjon of Rs.1,29,900/@ 9% perannum from the date offiling ofthe claim petition till the date of actual payment.

¶22

Shri Viprasen Agrawal, learhed counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs. 1,29,9007-only,though the appellant/claimant sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident. 5) Shri Prashant Jayaswal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Shailendra Sharma, learned counselforrespondentNo.StheNew India Insurance Company Limited, on the otherhand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,29,900/awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶23

Claimant Deendayal Pandey was aged about 43 years on the date of the accident. At the relevant time, he was working as Sub-Divisional Officer, Rural Engineering Service posted at Rajnandgaon. He sustained multiple injuriesin the motor accident including crush injuries in his left hand isestablished from the evidence of AW2 Dr. Sanjay Bakshi. It is a matter of common knowledge that substantial amount is required to be spent on the treatment of fractures. It is true that the claimant is getting the same salary after the accidentas he was getting before the accident and he has not been denied any promotion on accountof the injuries .sustained by him in the motor accident. Thus, it is

¶24

apparent that the injuries sustained by the claimantin the motor accident have not in any manneradversely affected his future earning capacity.

¶25

Be that as it may, the fact remains that the claimant sustained multiple injuries including crush injuries in his left hand in the motor accident resulting in amputation of his left thumband two fingers. The claimant would suffer physically and mentally on account of the amputation of his left thumb and two fingers for whole of his life.

¶26

The compensation of Rs.1,29,900/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the contextof the above mentioned broad features of the case, in our opinion, is somewhat on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced to some extent.

¶27

Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that further award of Rs.20,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amountof compensation would make the compensation of Rs.1,29,900/- awardedby the Tribunal asjust and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶28

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.20,000/- inclusiveof interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation in additionto the sum ofRs.1,29,900/- awarded by the Tribunat.

¶29

Respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum 6f Rs.20,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal.

¶30

No order as to costs.

¶31

Sd/Chief Justice

¶32

Sd/Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge

¶33

nimmi

¶34

\ i 1. .

Deendayal Pandey v. Durjan Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deendayal Pandey v. Durjan 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

Juggu and Ors. Vs State

Birendra Kumar Marble Vs Union Bank of India

Harinder Kaur Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Surja Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jagar Bai and Others Vs Ramesh Kumar Satnami and Others

Baban Das and Others Vs Kamlakant Singh and Others