Partly allowed

Narendra Kumar Sahu v. Mukhesh Kumar and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC14 Jun 2012MAC/632/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal from Rs. 51,000 to Rs. 72,000. The Court held that the original award was too low given the injuries sustained and allowed the claim in part.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed in part; the claimant was awarded an additional sum of Rs. 21,000 inclusive of interest component.

Narendra Kumar Sahu Vs Mukhesh Kumar and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARM AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH

¶3

CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV ©UPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J

¶4

¶5

Misc. Appeal (ClNo. 632 of 2011 .^...;'^.. ADpellant Narendra Kumar Sahu, aged 32 years, CSalmant s/o Biseswar Sahu, occupation Electrician, r/o Village Dunda, post Sejbahara, thana Ttkrapars, tah: & distt. Raipur C.6. VERSUS ResDondents 1 Mukesh Kumar, aged about 2& y^rs, Non-appllcants s/o Rupay Ram, occupation TrucR Driver, r/g village Riwa, thana Arang, tahsil & district Raipur C.G. Driver of the vehicle 2 M/s Hora Transport Co. Pvt. i.1td.; through Managing Director, Harminder Singh Hora, s/o late Amar Singh Hora, r/o Sas Nagar, Fafadih, Raipur Tah. & distt. Raipur C.G. Owner of the vehicle 3 The United Insurance Co. Ltd., through Divisional Manager, Divisjdnal Office, Kachahari Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur C.G. Insurance Co. ofthe vehlcle

¶6

Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of IVIotor Vehicles Act

¶7

Present : Shri Shiv Kumar Guha, coynsel forthe appellant. Shri Sanjay S.Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3.

ORDER

ith (14tnJune^2012^

...^ ^!fc.

MAC.No. 631 of 2011

The following order of th@ Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.

¶15

This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vlde award dated 04.03.2011 passed in Ctaim Case No.158/2007. *

¶16

As against the compensation of Rs.13,00,©QO/-,claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing aclaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehlcles Act for the injurtes sustained by him in the motor accident on 11.03.2008, theTribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.51,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fjling of the claim petltlon till the date of actual payment.

¶17

kNNrf-

¶18

The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held the United India Insurance Company Umit@l, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.CG04 ZC-0855 liable to pay the compensiation to the claimant.

¶19

The Tribynal constdering the number and nature of the injurjes pngiyed to have been sustained by the claimant in the mcrtor accident and the amount proved to have been spent on treatmait, awarded Rs.41,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.SyOOO/for pain and syffering; Rs.3,000/- for toss of income during the period of treatment; and Rs.2,000/- for special diet. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.51,000/- as compensation to the clalmant for the Injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above

¶20

'si';'^ '^ /!v '} '&—^^^v^^^^-^:.'^^^% 1^^ ''^•••^

¶21

¶22

MA.C. No. of2011

¶23

amount of compensation of Rs.51,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of theclaim petition till the date of actual payment. i 5) Shri Shiv Kumar Guha, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any sum under the conventional heads of attendant and special d(et; in awarding low sum of Rs.3,000/- only towards loss of ineome during the periodof treatment; and in awarding tow compensation of Rs.51,000/- only.

¶24

Shri Sanjay 8; Agrawal, leamed counsel for resp@ndent No.t the United India Insurance Company Ltmjted, the insurer of th® offendlrtg yehicle Truck on the^rther hand supported the avwrd and contended that the oompensation of Rs.51,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facste and circumstances of the present case.

¶25

Claimant Narendra KumarSahu wasaged ab©ut32years on the date of the accident. He was an eleetrteian by OG©upation. The daimant sustained myltiple serious injuries Including fr%;tures of his right ti|la and fibula bones in the motor accNent js borne out from the evidence available on record. It is a matter of common knowledge that sub^tantial amount is required to be spent on the treatment of fractures. The claimant, being an eleetrician coulct not have perfqrmed his duties as electrician on account of the fractures of his right tibia and fibula bones for a perio^ of about 2-3 months resulting in monetary Iqss to him.

¶26

The Tribunal has certalnly erred innot awarcllng any ®um under the conventional heads of attendant and convey8nce. The

¶27

:<^' . ^^'..-

¶28

MAC.No.632of2011

¶29

sum of Rs.3,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of incom®

¶30

during the period of treatment is also on the lower sfde.

¶31

¶32

1. The compensation of Rs.51,000/- av^rded by the Tribufial when examined Sn the context of the above mentloned fcroad , featuresof the case, in our opinion, Is certainly on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced suitably.

¶33

1. Considering all the relevant aspec^ of tlte matter, we are of the opinJQn that further award of Rs.21,000/- inclusive of li'rterest « componenton the enhanced amount of compensation would matoe the compensation of Rs.51,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the

¶34

pres^nt case.

¶35

1. The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant Tor enhancemert of the compensation, therefbre, is allowed in part. The ©laimantis awarded further sum of Rs.21,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of cqmpensationin addjtion to the sum of Rs.p1,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶36

1. Respondent No.3 the United India Insuranoe Company Limited, is grantedthree months' time for depositing thetotal sum of Rs.21,000/(Rypees twenty-one thousand only) befwe the

¶37

concerning Claims Tribunal.

¶38

No order asto costs.

¶39

Sd/ChiefJustice

¶40

Sd/R.N. Chandrakar Judge

¶41

nimmi

Narendra Kumar Sahu v. Mukhesh Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Kumar Sahu v. Mukhesh Kumar and Ors.

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.

Rajendra Kumar Vs Sheikh Ahmed and Others

Kairi and Ors. Vs Vishnu Vishwas and Anr.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Vs Noharam Sahu and Others