Dismissed

Ajit Singh Rajpal v. Vijay Kumar and Others

Chhattisgarh HC18 Jun 2012MA/1401/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of motor accident compensation. The Court held that the Tribunal's award of Rs.1,20,000, considering the claimant's continued employment and lack of impact on future earning capacity, was just and proper.

What did the court decide?

The appeal for enhancement of compensation is dismissed, and no order as to costs is made.

Ajit Singh Rajpal Vs Vijay Kumar and Others — Specific Performance | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

(b?

¶3

M.A. No. 1401 of 2005

¶4

“y‘

¶5

Transport Moudhapara, Raipur C.G. (Driver ^{of Truck No. M.P.-23-DA-} 3455)
5. Mohd. Nasir Quarashi, s/o Mohd. Gani Quarashi, Abdullah Goods Transport Moudhapara, Raipur C.G. (Driver ^{of Truck No. M.P.-23-DA-} 3455)
6. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, llnd Floor, Mobin Mahal, G.E. Road, Raipur C.G. (insurance ^{Co. of Truck No. M.P.-} 23-DA—3455)
7. B.C.H. Raju, s/o B.A. Babjubhai c/o M/s Kripa Transport Patel Complex, Ring Road, Raipur C.G. MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988.
Shri S.S. Rajput, counsel for the appellant. Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, counsel for respondent No.3. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.6. Present:
ORDER (18m ^{June, 2012)}
The following order of the Court was passed by
z Rajeev Gupta, C.J.
This is claimant’s appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the‘10‘h Additional MotorAccident

¶6

¶7

M.A. No. 1401 of 2005

¶8

Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short^‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 28.06.2005, passed in Claim Case No.31/2004.

¶9

As against the compensation of Rs.9,20,000/— claimed by the appellantlclaimant, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 07.04.2001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,20,000/— as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum.

¶10

The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Tata Sumo bearing registration No.M.P.—23-LA-1827, liable to pay compensation to the claimant. ' 4)‘ As the insurer of the above offending vehicle Tata Sumo has not filed any appeal against the impugned award challenging the above finding recorded by the Tribunal, the same now has attained finality.

¶11

The Tribunal considering the number and nature of the injuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident and the amount proved to have spent on treatment, awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment; Rs.45,000/— towards permanent disability; Rs.15,000/—^{formedicalexpenses;} and^{10,000/—forattendantand} special diet. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a totaL sum of Rs.1,20,000/— as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident.

¶12

¶13

¶14

M.A. No. 1401 of 2005

¶15

Shri S.S. Rajput, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,20,000/only, though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent^{disabilitytothe} extent of 45%.

¶16

Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, learned^counselfor respondent No.3, the New India Insurance Company^Limited,the insurer of the offending vehicle Tata Sumo,^on the^otherhand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,20,000/— awarded by the Tribunal can^{neverbetermedas} inadequate so as to warrant enhancement^{inthisappeal;}

¶17

’ 8) ‘Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.6 the National insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the Stationary Truck, also supported the award. 9) Claimant Ajit Singh Rajpal^was aged^about51 years^onthe date of the accident. At the relevant time, he was working as^an Engineer in a Private Concern Jet Industries, Raipur. The claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fracture in the motor accident is borne out from the evidence available^on record. It has come in the evidence of the^{claimanthimselfthat} inspite of the injuries and’fractures^{sustainedbyhiminthemotor} accident he was continuing in the same service with Jet Industries and was getting the^{samesalarywhichhewas} getting prior^{totheaccident.} Thus, it is apparent that the injuries and ‘ⁱ _ Vii, 7, i,.

¶18

5 M.A. No. 1401 of 2005

¶19

fractures sustained by the claimant in the motor accident have not in any manner adverseiy affected his future earning capacity.10) The compensation of Rs.1,20,000/— awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, we are satisfied, is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case and does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 11) As we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

¶20

No order as to costs.

¶21

Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE

¶22

l . u 4 Sdl-
Sunil Kumar Sinha;
Judge
ca

Ajit Singh Rajpal v. Vijay Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Singh Rajpal v. Vijay Kumar 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

Smt.Lagni Bai and Others Vs Baisakhuram and Others

Chamarin Bai Vs State

Raj Kumar Vs State

Gobaru @ Gobardhan and Ors. Vs State

Shambhoo Singh and Ors. Vs State

Neela Vati Vs Dhan Singh and Others