Partly allowed

Rajendra Kumar Netam v. Chandrasekhar Tiwari and Others

Chhattisgarh HC2 Feb 2012MAC/518/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal by a motor accident victim sought enhancement of compensation. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the Tribunal's award of Rs. 62,510. The court held the Tribunal erred in failing to assess functional disability and future earnings. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh enquiry.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award dated 10.11.2008 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for a fresh enquiry to assess functional disablement and future loss of earnin

Rajendra Kumar Netam Vs Chandrasekhar Tiwari and… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

BILASPUR fC.G.l

¶2

APPELLANT : ^ Rajendra Kumar Netam, S/o. Sadaram Netam, aged about 40 R/°sahdev Nagar, Ward l^'-"^ L^years/ Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and Q^W'''^^^No.l9, ^ ... ^; (^^'•'^ ,»**» District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) RT'l"".'..,w"i:"i ^^2A^'4*'""" • ^,^.---' _...2^^ , s^^ VERSUS

¶3

[ . j

¶4

•^

¶5

RESPONDENTS ^:1, Chandrasekhar Tiwari, S/o. Narayan ^e>^f^f^€^<^(y Tiwari, aged about 33 years, R/o. Shankar Ward N0.10, Near House of Kamal Kaser, Durg, P.S. Mohan Nagar, Durg (C.G.)

¶6

^2.

¶7

^2. Umashankar Sahu, S/o. Pukhraj Sahu, Nayapara Durg, District Durg, Near Rice Mill, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) -3. Branch Manager, The Orientat Insurance Company Umited, Madina Manzil, Jail Road, Kachhari Chowk, Raipur (C.G.)

¶8

CLAIM BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL

Rs.7,50,000/-

AWARD AMOUNT

Rs. 62,510/-

VALUATION OFTHE PRESENTAPPEAL

¶13

Rs.6,87,490/-

¶14

MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S. 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988

¶15

¶16

HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶17

M.A. (Q No. 518 of 2009

¶18

Appellant Rajendra Kumar Netam Versus Respondents Chandrasekhar Tiwari & others

¶19

MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988

¶20

DB: Hon'ble Dr. I. M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Mr. G. Minhajuddin, JJ

¶21

Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Manish Upadhyaya, Advocate for the respondent No.3.

¶22

None for the respondents No. 1 and 2.

¶23

ORDER (Oral)

¶24

( Passed on this 2nd day of February, 2012 )

¶25

Per I. M. Quddusi J.

¶26

This appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant against the impugned award dated 10.11.2008, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Rajnandgaon in Claim Case No. 23/2008 for enhancement of the award.

¶27

Brief facts of the case, as per the version of the claimant/injured, are that on 13.6.2007 he was going by his vehicle - Scooty to bring his wife from Thana. On the way, near old Government Hospital, due to rash and negligent driving of the non-applicant No.l, the Bus of Brinda Travels, bearing registration No. C.G. 07-E/0407 severely hit the Scooty. As a result of this accident claimant/injured fell down and received grievous injuries on various parts of his body. He got fracture in his waist and thigh. The injured/claimant was treated in Chandulal Chandrakar Hospital, Bhilai for a long period.

¶28

The claimant/injured filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 7,50,000/-. Learned Claims Tribunal having regard . to the facts situation and the evidence on record awarded a total sum of Rs. 62.510/- along with

.<br>

interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of application i.e. 16.11.2007, holding the appellant/Insurance company as liable to pay the amount of compensation. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records of the Tribunal. It is evident that. according to the claimant he was earning his livelihood by agriculture work and maintaining his family. Learned Claims Tribunal has found that the claimant has got 25 to 30 per cent permanent disability, however, it has not assessed the functional disability of the injured/claimant on the basis of the permanent disability, resulting in loss of earning capacity and its extent.

¶37

The permanent disability has direct link with the functional capacity of the injured. In the instant case, the Tribunal has not assessed the functional disability of the injured on the basis of the physical disability. The Tribunal has also not assessed the future loss of earning of the claimant due to actual permanent disability. In such circumstances, the Tribunal should have conducted proper enquiry as laid down in Rule 226 of the C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 and Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. ( See Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs. Shrinivas Sabata and another reported in AIR 1976 SC 222, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mubasir Ahmed and another reported in (2007) 2 SCC 349, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Nasir & Anr. reported in 2009 AIR SCW 3717). Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Palraj v. Divisional Controller, NEKRTC, 2010 AIR SCW 6996 has held that "While computing compensation for disabilities being suffered by a workman in the case of his employment, it is the functional disability resulting in loss of earning capacity which is the criteria which is followed in assessing compensation."

¶38

In view of the foregoing, the appeal is allowed in part, the impugned award datedlO.11.2008 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for decision afresh in view ofthe obser^ations made herein above.

¶39

Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend the pleadings, adduce further evidence, file documents or get the documents verified etc., and thereafter

^<br>

decision shall be taken afresh. The Tribunal shall conduct an enquiry, which is necessary for adjudication of the extent of functional disablement and future loss of earning of the claimant injured having regard to the extent of the physical permanent^disability.

¶44

¶45

¶46

The parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 29th March, 2012. The LC-R shall be sent back without further delay.

¶47

If the amount is deposited by the Insurance Company, the same shall be kept in a fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank for a period of six months extendable from time to time. However, if the sum or any part of the sum has been paid to the claimant, the same shall not be recovered during the pendency of the claim petition and it will be subject to fresh decision by the Tribunal. No order as to costs.

¶48

Sd/G. Minhajuddin Judge

¶49

Sd/Dr. I.M. Quddusi Judge

¶50

Thakur

Rajendra Kumar Netam v. Chandrasekhar Tiwari and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar Netam v. Chandrasekhar Tiwari and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reliance General Insurance Co. Vs Smt. Kamin Bai and Ors.

Fatte Singh Vs Lalita Das and Others

Branch Manager,Oriental Insurance Co.L Vs Visheshwar Mishra and Others

Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. Vs Prabal Kumar and 2 Others

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Surjeet Kaur and Others

Kararam and Anr. Vs Pradeep Kumar Meshram@Monu MESHRAMandORS