Dismissed

Br.Manager National Insu.Comp.Ltd. v. Piyush Agrawal and Others

Chhattisgarh HC1 Aug 2012MAC/1123/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by an insurance company against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award of Rs.65,000/- for injuries sustained by the claimant in a 2000 accident. The Court rejected the challenge noting medical reports confirmed severe fractures and bed-ridden status.

What did the court decide?

Insurer's appeal against the award of Rs.65,000/- dismissed as devoid of merit.

Br.Manager National Insu.Comp.Ltd. Vs Piyush Agrawal and Others — Insurance | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

.^^ss^^ ^ <v

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

MISC. APPEAL (Q No. 1123 of2010

¶5

APPELLANT : Branch Manager, National (Insurer/N.A.31 Insurance Company Limited, B-l, Taha Complex, First Floor, Priyadarshani Nagar, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur

¶6

(C.G.)

¶7

Versus

¶8

RESPONDENTS 1. Piyush Agrawal, S/o Vishnu (Claimant) Prasad Agrawal, aged about 27 years, R/o Manendragarh, Ward No.4, District Koriya (C.G.)

¶9

(Driverl 2. Anil Kumar Tamrakar, S/o Kanhaiya Tamrakar, aged about 45 years, R/o Vishal Nagar House Np. 0/2, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

(Ownerl 3. Smt. Charushila, aged 42 Nurse, R/o Vishal

¶11

years, Nagar House No. 0/2, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

S3:- Hon. Shri N.K. .Igarwal, J

¶13

PRESBNT:-

¶14

Shri B.N. Nande/counsel for the appellant. Shri Yogesh Chandra for respondent No. 1 Shri Neelkanth Malviya, counsel for respondents

¶15

No. 2 & 3.

¶16

ORAL AWARD

¶17

(PassedonO 1.08.2012)

¶18

This is insurer's appeal against the award dated 30.01.2010 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, Dist. Koriya in Claim Case No. 38/2009.

¶19

'%.. •%s^^ / ff

¶20

As against the compensation of Rs.3,28,000/- claimed by respondent No.l/claimant by filing claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') for the injuries sustained by hini in the motor accident on 04.12.2000, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.65,000/- to the claimant along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim application till its actual payinent.

¶21

The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held: the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle, i.e., Mahindra Utility bearing registration No.M.P. 59/0065 by its driver respondent No.2 - Anil Kumar Tamrakar: the claimant sustained multiple injuries in the said accident; appellant / insurance company liable for payment of compensation as it could not establish violation of policy conditions; assessed and awarded the aforesaid sum as conipensation to the claimant.

¶22

Shri B.N.Nande, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the claimant did not examine the treating Doctor nor did prove that he had suffered any permanent disability and despite the above fact, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.65,000/-, which is shockingly on higher side.

¶23

^^^^ •'^ '^ ^^w^^/G^. /<

¶24

^ o

¶25

Per contra, Shri Yogesh Chandra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.l/claimant supported the award impugned and submitted: the claimant sustained compound fracture of tibia and fibula bones; also remained out ofjobfor a period of one year and in view of above, the aniount of compensation of Rs.65000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as shockingly on higher side and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶26

Shri Neelkanth Malviya, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 also supported the award impugned.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award impugned including the record of the Tribunal.

¶28

True, the claimant failed to prove the medical expenses incurred by him by filing medical bills and also did not examine the treating Doctor but as per Ex.A/2, the medical report, it is crystal clear that the claimant sustained corapound fracture of tibia and fibula. Dr. D.K.Singh, examined by the claimant, also stated that the claimant must have been bed-ridden for a period of 4 months.due to injuries sustained by him in the said accident. It is a matter of common knowledge that treatment of fracture requires sufficient amount.

¶29

¶30

/^"^'-c:x ^^.•^&. •>.^^^m. 1 .-?

¶31

The claimant must have suffered pain and sufferings for a period of 6 months and must have suffered loss of income for a period of 4 - 5 months.

¶32

When the matter is examined in the context of above broad features of the case, the amount of compensation of Rs.65,000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as shockingly on higher side warranting interference of this Court in the instant appeal.

¶33

No other points have been raised.

¶34

For the reasons mentioned herein above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶35

Sd/N.K. Agrawal Judge

Br.Manager National Insu.Comp.Ltd. v. Piyush Agrawal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Br.Manager National Insu.Comp.Ltd. v. Piyush Agrawal 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

Lalmuni Devi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt.Pramila Bai and Another Vs Rudra Kumar Gupta

Shankar Israni Vs Smt.Amarjeet Kaur

Gopal Singh Thakur Vs Pancham Singh Thakur and Others

Azimuddin @ Modia Dead Th.Lr'S and Ors. Vs Abrar Miya

Lochan Prasad Vs Raghuwar Singh and Ors.