Partly allowed

Ramesh Kumar Tiwary v. Mohammad Saleem Siddiquee and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC20 Jun 2012MAC/702/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This high court allowed a claimant's appeal in part to enhance motor accident compensation found deficient by the Tribunal, directing the insurer to deposit the net enhanced amount after adjusting an arithmetic overpayment.

What did the court decide?

Further sum of Rs.20,000 awarded; insurance company ordered to deposit net amount of Rs.15,000 after adjusting excess received.

Ramesh Kumar Tiwary Vs Mohammad Saleem Siddiquee… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

'3^<br>

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH

¶3

CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J

¶4

Misc. Appeal (C) No.702 of 2009

¶5

Appellant Ramesh Kumar Tiwary, son of Claimant Raghunath Prasad Tiwary, about 28 years, Occupation Shopkeeper, R/o Dongergarh, District - Rajnandgaon (Chhattisagarh)

¶6

VERSUS Respondents 1 Mohammad Saleem Siddiquee, son of Non-applicants Abdul Vahid Kuraishi, aged about 31 years (Driver) R/o Mamta Nagar Gali, Town, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon 2 Brij Mohan Singh Rajput, s/o Bisahu Singh Rajput (Vehicle Owner), r/o Gatapar, PS Than Khamhariya, District Durg (CG) 3 The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd., through the Branch Manager, Kamthee Line Rajnandgaon (CG)

¶7

Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of

¶8

Motor Vehicles Act

¶9

Present : Shri VK Sharma, counsel for the appellant. Shri HP Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3.

¶10

ORDER

¶11

(20thJune,2012)

¶12

The following order of the Court was passed by

¶13

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.

¶14

This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims

¶15

.^=t->

¶16

M.A.C.No.702of2009

¶17

Tribunal, Rajnandgaon, Camp Dongergarh (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 07.03.2009 passed in Claim Case No. 18/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.8,55,000/-, claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 01.05.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.62,529/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

¶18

The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Auto-Rickshaw bearing registration No.CG-07 P-1030 liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. 4) As the insurer of the above offending vehicle Auto-Rickshaw has not filed any appeal against theimpugned award challenging the above findings recorded by the Tribunal, the same, now has attained finality.

¶19

The Tribunal considering the number and nature of the injuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident and the amount proved to have been spent on treatment, awarded Rs.40,000/- towards permanent disability; Rs.5,002/- for damage to the motorcycle; Rs.5,000/- for conveyance; Rs.4,527/towards medical expenses; and Rs.3,000/- for attendant and special diet. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.62,529/as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident (from paras 21 to 26 of the

¶20

^^s^^ ^'.^•^. '% f'£3 ^ 1 '^ l' '^^^JJ; ^st^w^'

¶21

¶22

M.A.C.No.702of2009

¶23

impugned award, we gather that there is an apparent arithmetical mistake in the totaling of the sums awarded by the Tribunal under the different heads as the total of the amounts mentioned above would come to Rs.57,529/and the Tribunal has awarded Rs.62,529/-). The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.62,529/- @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

¶24

Shri VK Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any sum towards pain and suffering and loss of income during the period of treatment; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.62,529/- only.

¶25

Shri HP Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Auto-Rickshaw on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.62,529/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶26

Claimant Ramesh Kumar Tiwary was aged about 28 years on the date of the accident. Though he claimed that he used to run a shop, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the above occupation of the claimant. In the absence of any cogent evidence in that behalf, it can safely be assumed that the claimant at least was working as a labour. The claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures of his left tibia and fibula bones in the motor accident is borne out

¶27

¶28

M.A.C.No.702of2009

¶29

^' .,,..,^-^\ %^ "'^ "y / '•^t.^•^-^?;'^

¶30

from the evidence available on record. It is a matter of common knowledge that substantial amount is required to be spent on the treatment of fractures. The claimant on account of the fractures of his lefttibia and fibula bones, could not have worked as labour for a period of 2-3 months resulting in monetary loss to him.

¶31

The Tribunal has certainly erred in not awarding any sum towards pain and suffering and loss of income during the period of treatment.

¶32

The compensation of Rs.57,529/- assessed by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, in our opinion, is certainly on the lower side and deserves to be enhancedsuitably.

¶33

Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that further award of Rs.20,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.57,529/- assessed by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶34

The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is allowed in part. The claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.20,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sum of Rs.57,529/- assessed by the Tribunal.

¶35

As the Tribunal on account of arithmetical mistake, has awarded Rs.62,529/- as against the correct total of Rs.57,529/- and the claimant has received a sum ofRs.5,000/- in excess, the same,

.-•./

'?^,:..,:.:;'r"

M.A.C.No.702of2009

/ 5'g,

in our opinion, is required to be adjusted in the amount of Rs.20,000/-, now awarded. As such, the liability of the Insurance Company now is to deposit further amount of Rs. 15,0007- only. 14) Respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs. 15,0007- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) before the concerning Claims Tribunal.

¶42

No order as to costs.

¶43

Sd/Chief Justice

¶44

Sd/R.N. Chandrakar Judge

¶45

padma

Ramesh Kumar Tiwary v. Mohammad Saleem Siddiquee and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar Tiwary v. Mohammad Saleem Siddiquee 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

Gayatri Bai and Ors. Vs Damarudhar Sao and Ors.

Nandu Devi and Others Vs Dinesh Patkar and Others

Smt. Gouri Verma and Ors. Vs Fareed Khan and Ors.

Asha Chouhan and Others Vs Viresh Kumar and Others

Subho Bai Vs Smt. Aasha Devi and Ors.

Kailash Ram Vs Rajendra Singh Chhabda and Others