Partly allowed

Dadu Ram v. Mohd.Asbar Ali

Chhattisgarh HC3 Aug 2012MA/884/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common appeal by four claimants against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order awarding compensation. The single-judge High Court allowed two appeals to enhance monetary awards due to omitted heads of damage like loss of income during hospitalization, while dismissing two other appeals where the awarded amount was deemed adequate without proof of specific losses.

What did the court decide?

MA Nos. 881/05 and 884/05 allowed in part with compensation enhanced; MA Nos. 882/05 and 883/05 dismissed as inadequate compensation found not warranted.

Dadu Ram Vs Mohd.Asbar Ali — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶2

Misc. Appeal No. 881 of2005

¶3

APPELLANT	Motilal S/o Samay Lal, aged about 48 years R/o Village Tilaibhat PS Sahaspur Lohara, Distt. Rajnandgaon(CG). VERSUS
RESPONDENTS Mi	1. Mohd. Asbar @ Ajbar Ali S/o Mohd. Hunajuddin, Driver, R/o Manan Road Corporation, 17, Kashinath Malik Lane, 4 Floor, Calcutta. 2. Jaymal Singh S/o Darshan Singh, Vehicle Owner, 105, Kashipur Road, Calcutta. 3. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Head Office, Calcutta (WB) Policy No.313404020180113. sc. AppealNo. 882of2005
APPELLANT Claimant	Banshilal S/o Derharam Verma, aged about 31 years, R/o Village Bhathli PS Salhepara, Tehsil Chhuikhadan, Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG). VERSUS
RESPONDENTS Mi	1. Mohd. Asbar @ Ajbar Ali S/o Mohd. Himajuddin, Driver, R/o Manan Road Corporation, 17, Kashinath Malik Lane, 4 Floor, Calcutta. 2. Jaymal Singh S/o Darshan Singh, Vehicle Owner, 105, Kashipur Road, Calcutta. 3. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Head Office, Calcutta (WB) Policy No.313404020180113. sc. AppealNo. 883 of2005
APPELLANT Claimant	Teej Lal S/o Rameshwar Sahu, aged about 48 years

¶4

R/o Village Matia, PS Dongarg Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG).

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

RESPONDENTS	1. Mohd.	Asbar @ Ajbar Ali S/o
	Mohd.	Himajuddin, Driver, R/o
	Manan Kashin Calcutt	Road Corporation, 17, ath Malik Lane, 4 Floor, a.
	2. Jaymal Vehicle Road, C	Singh S/o Darshan Singh, Owner, 105, Kashipur alcutta.
	3. The Ne Head O No.313 &	w India Insurance Co. Ltd. ffice, Calcutta (WB) Policy 404020180113.

¶7

Misc. Appeal No. 884 of 2005

¶8

APPELLANT	Dadu Ram S/o Dularu Lodhi, aged
Claimant	about 43 years, R/o Village Amlidih, Post Pipariya, Distt. Rajnandgaon(CG). VERSUS
RESPONDENTS	Mohd. Asbar @ Ajbar Ali S/o Mohd. Himajuddin, Driver, R/o Manan Road Corporation, 17, Kashinath Malik La.ne, 4 Floor, Calcutta. Jaymal Singh S/o Darshan Singh, Vehicle Owner, 105, Kashipur Road, Calcutta. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Head Office, Calcutta (WB) Policy No.313404020180113.
CAPPEALS UNDERSE	CTION 173 OFTHEMOTORVEmCLES ACT)
(SB:	Hon'bleMr.N.K.Asarwal,J.)

¶9

Present	: Shri Govind Ram Miri with Shri Ratan Pusty, Advocates for
	theappellanVclaimant.
	None forrespondentNo. 1 & 2.
	Shri Raj Awasthy, Advocate for respondent No.3/Insurance Co.

¶10

ORAL AWARD

¶11

(Passed on 03.08.2012)

¶12

By this common award, Misc. Appeal Nos. 881, 882, 883 and 884 of 2005 are being disposed of as common facts & issues are involved in all the appeals and are arise out ofsame accident.

¶13

All the appeals have been filed by the appellants/claimants Motilal, Banshilal, Teej Lal and Dadu Ram seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Ist Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short^'the Tribunal') in claim case Nos. 213,214, 212 and 215 respectively vide award dated 07.05.2005.

¶14

Facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are that : on 02.04.1998 the appellants were sitting in the Truck bearing registration No. WB-25/4127 and were coming to Rajnandgaon from Nagpur (MH). Near Malaidabari, the said Truck tumed turtle as a result ofwhich the appellants/claimants sustained injuries.

¶15

As against compensation claimed by the claimants under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short 'MV Act') for the injuries sustained by them in the motor accident on 02.04.1998, the Tribimal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 12,000/- to Motilal, Rs. 5000/- to Banshilal, Rs. 7000/- to Teejlal and Rs. 14,1 11/- to Dadu Ram as compensation along with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date ofapplication till its actual payment.

¶16

The Tribunal, on a close scmtiny of the evidence led, held : the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by driver of Tmck bearing registration No. WB-25/4127; all the claimants sustained injuries in the said accident; respondent No. 3/The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. not liable for payment of compensation to the claimants as the appellants were sittmg in the Tmck as a passenger; assessed and awarded aforesaid sums as compensation to the claimants against the driver and owner of Truck exonerating the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants

¶17

Shri Miri and Shri Pusty, leamed counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently argued that as claimant Motilal and Daduram remained in the hospital as indoor patient for a period of 8 & 9 days respectively, the Tribunal has failed to award any sum for loss of income during treatinent and also on the head of special diet, attendant and conveyance, and thus has fallen in error in awarding low amount of compensation of Rs. 12,000/and 14,1 II/respectively.

¶18

While admitting the fact that appellant Banshilal and Teej Lal have sustained simple mjury, they have further contended that the amount of compensation of Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 7000/- awarded to claimant Banshilal and Teej Lal are also on the lower side which deserve to be suitably enhanced.

¶19

On the other hand, Shri Awasthy, learaed counsel appearing respondent No. 3/Insumce Co. supported fhe av/ard impugned would submit in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal has rightly awarded the amount which does not call for any interference.

¶20

I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the award impugned including records ofall the cases.

¶21

The fact that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Tmck driver and respondent/insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation to the appellants/claimants are now not in dispute, as they were sitting in the Truck as gratuitous passenger, for which respondent/insurance Co. is neither statutory liable nor had assumed the risk of passengers sitting in the Tmck by entering into special contract with the owner and by charging extra premium therefor.

¶22

Now I shall examine adequacy or otherwise of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the aforesaid cases.

¶23

In M.A. Nos. 881/05 and 884/05, although the appellants/claimants have not proved the loss sustained by them in the accident by proving medical bills and the injury reports, however, there is ample evidence on record to show the appellants were admitted in the hospital as indoor patient for a period of 8 & 9 days respectively. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/- for pain and

¶24

suffering and Rs. 2000/- for medical expenses in MA No. 881/05 and Rs. 10,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 4111/- for medical expenses in MA No. 884/05. Thus, the Tribimal has certamly fallen in error in not awarding any sum towards attendant, special diet, conveyance and for loss ofincome during treatment.

¶25

Considering the facts and circunstances ofthe case, in my opinion, further award ofRs. 7000/- to claimant Motilal and Rs. 10,000/- to Dadu Ram would make the compensation as just and proper compensation.

¶26

In M.A. Nos. 882/05 and 883/05, as the appellants/claimants have not proved the loss sustained by them in the accident by proving medical bills and the injury reports, therefore, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 7000/- to the claimants Banshilal and Teej Lal cannot be termed as inadequate, and therefore, there is no scope for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶27

For the foregoing reasons, MA Nos. 881/05 and 884/05, filed by the appellants-Motilal and Dadu Ram, for enhancement of compensation are allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. 12,000/- and Rs. 14,1 II/- awarded by the Tribunal in MA No. 881/05 and 884/05 are enhanced to Rs. 19,000/- and Rs. 24,1 II/respectively. Now, the appellants/claimants are further entitled to receive Rs. 7,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- over and above the aniounts

¶28

C2 <-) ly-

¶29

awarded by the Tribunal. Enhanced amount ofRs. ^, 10,0007- shall cany interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual payments. As in MA Nos. 882/05 and 883/05, I do not find any scope of enhancement of compensation, the same are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. Awards in MA No. 881/05 aad 884/05 stand modified to the above extent. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the award shall remain iatact.

¶30

No order as to cost.

¶31

Sd/N.K. Agrawal Judge

¶32

Sahu

Dadu Ram v. Mohd.Asbar Ali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dadu Ram v. Mohd.Asbar Ali

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

Ramsahay and Ors. Vs Phiranthin Bai and Ors.

Smt.Prabha Choubey Vs Devi Prasad and Others

Smt.Prabha Choubey Vs Trilok Chand Barmecha and Others

Banshi Lal Vs Mohd.Asbar Ali

Teej Lal Vs Mohd.Asbar Ali @ Ajber Ali

Dwarika Prasad Agrawal Vs Satyanarayan