Partly allowed

Rajesh Kumar and Others v. Rajendra Singh and Others

Chhattisgarh HC6 Feb 2012MA/928/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed an appeal to enhance compensation awarded for a minor's permanent disability. The Court increased the awarded sum from Rs. 1,34,504 to Rs. 2,00,000 and granted interest on the difference.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000 with 6% interest on the additional Rs. 65,496 payable to the claimant within three months.

Rajesh Kumar and Others Vs Rajendra Singh and… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

/
%
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASR PU
‘ ‘
(CHHATTISGARH)
m Pr ‘/ ¢g€1“/ ¥ w“
1. RAJESH KUMA R
S/O SHRI COLLECTOR SAHU I’m
«
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS P.R No. g‘kigi "v
1
COLLECTOR SAHU
S/O LATE SHRI MANGALU SAHU AGED “ w
‘
ABOUT 52 Y EARS
K
Through :- The legal guardian of the Minor Rajesh Kumar
(FATHER'OF THE Appellant MINOR RAJESH KUMAR)
BOTH R/O SHANKAR NAGAR CHAWNI BHILAI KIRANA
SHOP, TAH. AND DISTT. DURG (C.G.)
.. Appellants/Claiments
VERSUS
1. RAJENDRA SINGH
T S/O SHRIRAMDEO NAIK
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
i
T R/O SHARMA COLONY
THANA CHAWNI TAH. AND DISTT. DURG (C.G.)
A
MES$§S PARAS ROAD LINES BHILAI,
TAH. AND DISTI'. DURG (C.G.)
T THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
"
DIVISIONAL OFFICE
AKASH GANGA COMPLEX SUPELA,
BHILAI DISTT DURG (C G)
MTSLELLAENEOUS APP NDER SECTION 7 3 ’1‘ OF THE MOTOR
VEHKICLE ACTL 1988 /

¶2

‘4

¶3

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MA. N9" 928 OF 2092

¶6

Raiesh Kumar and another.

¶7

_ Versus

¶8

Kapnara 5m9n ana otners.

¶9

This

¶10

As against compensation of Rs. 41,50,000Iciaimed by appeliant/claimant by filing claimipetition^{underSection166of} the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for \short ‘the Aot’) for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 64.2000, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,34,504I-^{totheclaimant} along with interest @ 12% per annum^{fromthedateoffilingof} claim petition^till its actual payment. The Tribunal. on a close scrutiny of the evidence^ted, heid : the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of trailer bearing registration No. MP 23D/2281 by its driver i.e. respondent No. 1 —- Rajendra Sinah; appellant— Rajesh Kumar sustained amputation of right leg below knee resuiting in permanent disability to the extent of 50%: respondent No. 3/insurance Company liable for payment^{ofcompensation} as it could not establish the violation of policy conditions; assessed and awarded aforementioned^{sumascompensation} to the claimant.

¶11

¶12

Shri B.P. Singh, learned counsel for the appenants wouid submit: the appeliantielaimant was aged about 1§ years at the time of accident; was a student of dass 8‘“ ,^{‘osthisrightleg;is} permanently^disabled for the whoie me but the Tribunal has awarded cnly Rs.1,34,5G4/— as campensatlen inclusive of r medical expenses which is shockingly on lower side.’ According ta him. the Tribunal should have awarded at least Rs. 2:00:0001— in all as compensation for the injuries sustained by him. Per contra, Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, supported the award impugned and submitted, in the’ facts and circumstances of the case, compensation awarded by the Tribunal is iust and proper compensation and does not call for any interference.

¶13

l have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties^and perused the material available on record including award impugned.

¶14

The facts that the appellant/claimant sustained amputation of right lag below knee in the motor accident on 6.4.2000 and the respondent No. 3/lnsurance Company is liable for payment of compensation are now not in dispute.

¶15

As per evidence adduced by the appeilant, the appellant is aged about 15 years and was student of class 8m ,at the time of accident. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.34,504/towards medical expenses; and Rs. 1,00,000/— as lump sum compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant in^the said accident, The Tribunal has ignored the fact that the appellant has to suffer pain and suffering for the entire life; the appellant must have incurred considerable amount towards medical expenses, attendant and conveyance.

¶16

When the matter is examined in the context of above broad features of the case, in the considered opinion^ofthis Court, the award of Rs.2,00,000/. instead of Rs.1 ,34,504/- as awarded by the Tribunal, would make the amount of compensation as just

¶17

and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present^case.

¶18

For the foregoing reaoons, the appeal filed by the appeuants for enhancement of compensation is ailowed in part. The compensation of Rs.1,34,504/awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.2,0Q,000/—. The appeuanticiaimant is further entitted to receive Rs. 65,496f- over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunat Enhanced amount of Rs.65;496/- snail carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of firing of claim petition^{tillitsactuai} payments.^{Awardismodifiedtotheabove} extent. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the award shati remain intact.

¶19

The respondent No. 3/National insurance Company Limited is granted three months time to deposit enhanced amount of) compensation of Rs. 65,496I- along with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of ciaim petition before the concerning Claims Tribunal.

¶20

No order as to costs.

¶21

Set/-
N. K. Agarwa'uj
Judge

Rajesh Kumar and Others v. Rajendra Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar and Others v. Rajendra 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

Ram Lal and Anr. Vs Bacchan and Ors.

Sandeep Kumar Jagatramka Vs Banwari Jagatramka and Ors.

Smt.Inderjeet and Another Vs Tahsildar

Bajaj Allianz Genral Insu.Co.Lt. Vs Laxman Das Deshlehara and Others

Balbeer Das Manikpuri Vs Bhuwan Lal and Others

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Vs Nikhil Beriwal and Another