Partly allowed

Rajendra Kumar v. Sheikh Ahmed and Others

Chhattisgarh HC14 Jun 2012MAC/1372/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench allowed claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act. Court held Tribunal erred in ignoring loss of income during treatment and ordered further Rs. 21,000 inclusive of interest.

What did the court decide?

Claimant awarded further sum of Rs. 21,000 inclusive of interest component on enhanced compensation to be paid within three months by New India Insurance Company Limited.

Rajendra Kumar Vs Sheikh Ahmed and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH

¶2

HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATHCHANDRAKAR, J

¶3

MSsc. Appeal (0 No. 1372 of2009

¶4

Appellant Claimant

¶5

Rajendra Kumar, son of h^nhaiya Lal, aged 39 years, Jain, resident of Statlon Road, Ward No.8, Batod, Tahsll & Police Station Balod, District Durg

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Respondents 1 Sheikh Ahmed, son of Sheikh Non-applicants Mehboob, aged 39 years.resident of Dondilohara, PS Dondilohara, District Durg (Driver Balod Bus Service No. CG 07 - E-0412)

¶8

2 Shiv Kumar Gupta, son of late Badri Prasad Gupta, aged 45 yeare, resident of Indira Chowk, Batod, District Durg (Driver Balod Bus ServiceNo.GG 07-E0412)) ,

¶9

3 The New India Insurance Company Ltd., through the Divisional Manager, Office- Supela Bhilai, Durg (CG)

¶10

4 Pukhraj Jain, son of Bhalyyalal, resident of Mararpara, Balod, Tahsil Balod, Dtstrict Durg (CG)—^-

¶11

5 Unlted India Insurance Company Ltd., through Branch Manager, Branch OfTice •Vora Complex,' Power Hosue Bhilai,

¶12

District Durg (CG)

¶13

MiisceHaneousADpeal underSection 173 of Motor Vehicles Act

¶14

Present Shri Indrasen Sahu, counsel for the appellant.

¶15

Shd Uttam Pandey, counsel for respondent No.2.

¶16

A ,y

¶17

¶18

M.A.C. No. 1372 cS 2006

¶19

Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsel forrespondent No.3. Shri H.B. Agrawal,Senior Counsel wtth Smt. Meera Jalswal, eounsel for respondent No.5.

¶20

ORDER (14m ith June, 2012)

¶21

The foilowing order of the Court was passed by

¶22

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.

¶23

This is Glaimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additlonal Motor Accldent Claims Tribunat, Balod, district Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated31.08.20Q9 passed in Ctaim Case No.45/20)8.

¶24

As against the eompensation of Rs.28,65,000/-, claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section t68 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor aGcident on 04.09.^X)7, the Tribunal awarded atataisum of Rs.3,81,200/-as compensatlon along with interest @ 6% per annum.

¶25

The Tribunal on a close scrutlny of the entireevidence led before it held the New India Insurance Company Llmited,the insurer ofthe offending vehicle Bus bearing registration No.CG-07 -' E/0412|iable to pay the compensation to the claimant.

¶26

^. X-.

¶27

As the insurer of the above offendlng vehjcle Bus has not flted any appeal againstthe impugned award challenging the above findlng recorded by the Tribunal, the same now has attained finality.

¶28

M.A.C. No. 1372 of 2009

¶29

^ ^ i -::%^^-^^^'•':S^SS-^sssi!'-,i:s ^??

¶30

The Tribunal considering the number and nature of the injuries provedto have been sustained by the claimant inthemotor accident and the amount proved to have been spent on treatment, awarded Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss In the future earningcE^acfty on accoyntof the permanent disability; Rs.1,39,200/- towards medical expenses; Rs.15,000/towards pain and suffering; Rs.12,000/- for conveyance; Rs.10,000/- for spK;ial diet; and Rs.5,000/- for attendant. The Trlbunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.3,81,200/- ascompensation tothe claimant for the injttries sustafned.by him in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of intereston the aboveamount of compensation ofRs.3,81,200/- @ 6% per annum.

¶31

Shri tndrasen Sahu, leamed counsel tor the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any sum towards loss of income during theperiod of treatment; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,81,200/- only, though the appellant/clatmant sustained multlple serious injuries including fracture of his right femur bone inthe motor accident resulting in permanent^{disabilitytp the extent of 45%.}

¶32

1. Shri Soyrabh Sharma, learned counsel fw respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Bus on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.3,81,200/- awarded by the Tribunal can never be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement of compensatlon in this appeal.

¶33

\ ^ ^ y,. '"'Saaf^ 's.fs:

¶34

¶35

M.A.C.No. 1372 of 2009

¶36

Shri Uttam Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No.2 Shiv Kumar Gupta, the owner of the offending vehtele Bus, supported the award.

¶37

Shri H.B. Agrawal, leamed Senior Counsel with Smt. Meera Jatswal,, leamed counsel appearing for respondent No.5 the Unlted India Irisurance Company Limited, the insurer of the claimant's motorcycle, also supported the award.

¶38

Claimant Rajendra Kumar was aged about 39 yeare on the date of the accident. He was running a fumiture and eleetronic shop in the township of Balod in the District of Durg. Theclaimant sustained myltiple serious injurles including fracture of hls right femur bone in the motor accident is borne out from the evidence available on record. It is a-matter of common knowledge that substantial amount is requiredtobe spent on the treatment ef fractures, The claimant on account of the fracture of his right Temur bone, could nothave attended his shop for a period of about 2-3 months resulting in monetary loss to him.

¶39

The Trlbunal has certainly erred in nrt awarding any sum towards loss of income during ie period oftreatment.

¶40

°>...

¶41

The compensation of Rs.3,81,200/- Enwarded by the Tribunal when examlned in the context of the aboye mentioned broad features of the case, in our opinion, is somewhat on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced to someextent.

¶42

Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that further award of Rs.21,000/- inclusive of interest component onthe enhanced amountof compensation would make

¶43

"^\

¶44

Ms.-^'S'

¶45

I.A.C.No.1372 of 2009

¶46

the compensation of Rs.3,81,200/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circum^ances of tie present case.

¶47

The appeat flled by the appellant/claimant for enhancement oftl^e compensation, therefore, is allowed in part. Theclaimant is awarded further sum of Rs.21,000/- Inctusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation In addition to the sum of Rs.3,81,200/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶48

Respondent No.3 the New India Insuranee Company Limited,the insurer of the offendlng vehicte Bus is granted three months' time Tor deposlting the totat sum of Rs.21,000/- (Rupees twenty-one thousand only) before the conceming Glaims Tribunal.

¶49

16} No order as to costs.

¶50

Sd/Sd/Kangaath Chandrakai Chief Justice Judge '"y^r

¶51

nimml

Rajendra Kumar v. Sheikh Ahmed and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar v. Sheikh Ahmed 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. Pushplata Das Vs Kartik Raut and Ors.

Up Van Parikshetra Officer and Ano Vs Mantoria Bai and Others

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Hemlal and Anr.

Narendra Kumar Sahu Vs Mukhesh Kumar and Ors.

Kairi and Ors. Vs Vishnu Vishwas and Anr.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Vs Noharam Sahu and Others