Partly allowed

Mohd Moinuddin v. Bashir and Others

Chhattisgarh HC2 Sept 2011MAC/1164/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Finding the Tribunal erred in not awarding sums for attendant, special diet, and conveyance expenses due to the claimant's six-month absence from duty, the Court increased the award by Rs. 10,000.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 33,000 to Rs. 43,000 with interest at 6 percent per annum.

Mohd Moinuddin Vs Bashir and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

JN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR_[CG.

¶2

M.A. (C) /2009

¶3

APPELLANT : ,Mohd. Moinuddin S/o Jahur Ahmed ^' Claimant aged about 42 Years, R/o Subhash /lqSs^^ i/^^~ Nagar, Taj Engineering Naharpara, Moudhapara, Raipur, Tahsil and District ^..^"^^:31^>l^ \ r^^°l Raipur (C.G.)

'^-••"

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS ^ .1. Boshir S/o Ali Ansari, aged obout NON-CLAIMANTS 23 years, R/o Shivaji Nagar, Kohaka, Thana Supela, Bhitai, District Durg (C.G.) 2. Molid, Yunus S/o Mohd. Pysu, ^ Occupation : Vehicle Owner, R/o Kurud Road, behind Masjid, Kohaka, Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) 3. The New Indio Insurance Company (ePrivate Limited, Branch Office Bhiloi/ Through : Divisional Manoger, Divisional Office, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, Tahsil & Dislrict Raipur (CG)

¶9

Miscellanceous Appeai under Sectiotilhe Motor Vehicle Act, 1994

¶10

HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR

¶11

Misc. Appeal (0 No. 1164 of 2009

Appellant Claimant

Mohd. Moinuddin

VERSUS

Respondents Non-claimants

¶16

Bashir & others

¶17

(APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT)

¶18

(SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.l

¶19

¶20

Present Shri A.L. Singroul, Advocate for the appellant. Shri SP Sahu, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Shri Deepak Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 3.

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

(Passed^{on02.09.2011)}

¶23

¶24

This is claimants' appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by XI Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 57/07 vide award dated 25.02.2009.

¶25

¶26

As against the compensation of Rs. 18,00,000/- claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short tMV Acf), for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 09.01.2007; the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 33,000/- as compensationalong with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tili the date of actual payment.

¶27

The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of evidence led, held : appetlant i.e. driver of Bus bearing registration No. CG-06-B-1299 and the respondent No.1 i.e. driver of Matador bearing registration No. CG-07C-2959 equally negligent to the cause of accident; insurance company

¶28

liable for payment of compensatipn as it had failed to prove breach of

¶29

^SE

¶30

^^m
s^
^•^% s
-^JJ
v^"'"^
^;^-^

¶31

policy conditions; awarded Rs. 33,000/- in favour of appellant/cJaimant along with interest @ 6 percent from the date of application tlll the date of actual payment after deducting 50 percent of Rs. 66,000/- towards his contributory negligence.

¶32

Theonly submission made by Shri Singroul, learned counsel appearing for the appellant is : nothing has been awarded by the Tribunal towards the amount spent by the appellant on attendant, special diet & conveyance, and therefore, award amount deserves to be suitably enhanced looking to the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶33

On the other hand, Shri SP Sahu and Shri Deepak Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 & 3 respectively supported the award impugned and would submit : the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

¶34

1 have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records ofthe Tribunal as well as order impugned.

¶35

G.-

¶36

A bare perusal of award amount would reveal the appellant/claimant did not attend his duty for a period of six months due to injuries sustained by him in the said accident, therefore, he must have spent some amount in engaging attendant, special diet and also towards conveyance, and therefore, the Tribunal has certainly falien in error in not awarding any sum on the above heads.

¶37

The compensation of Rs. 33,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, when examined in the context of above facts of the case, in my opinion, is

¶38

certainly on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced suitably.

"^^^^" ^y

Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, 1 am of the opinion that further award of Rs. 10,000/- would make the compensation of Rs. 33,QOO/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶43

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 33,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 43,000/-. The enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 1 0,000/shall carry interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the award shall remain intact. The award stands modified to the above extent.

¶44

The respondent No. 3/The New India Insurance Company Pvt. Limited is granted frwo months' time to deposit enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- along with interestbefore the concerned

¶45

claims Tribunal. No order as to costs.

¶46

N.K.^Agrawal Judge

¶47

Sahu

Mohd Moinuddin v. Bashir and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Moinuddin v. Bashir 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.

Shanker Singh Vs Ramesh Singh and Others

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