Partly allowed

Sete Bai v. Ganesh Ram and Others

Chhattisgarh HC9 Feb 2012MAC/916/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows two appeals regarding compensation awards under the Motor Vehicles Act. The High Court held that the Claims Tribunal failed to adequately consider loss of earning capacity and functional disability. It set aside the award for the injured claimant, remitting the matter for recalculation, while dismissing the owner's appeal against an award for a deceased's family as there were

What did the court decide?

M.A(C) Nos. 847/2011 & 916/2011 allowed in part; impugned award set aside for Claim Petition 239/2009 and remitted for recalculation. M.A(C) No. 848/2011 dismissed.

Sete Bai Vs Ganesh Ram and Others — Insurance | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

Oivlsson »£

¶2

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.)

¶3

M.A. ( C) N0. .9 16 OF2011 (D.BJ.

¶4

APPELLANT

¶5

CLAIMANT

¶6

RIiSPONDENTS : 1. NON-CLAIMANTS

¶7

o
°)
Cr .<•" >'W^*' .f''
^.^ .•••'''
.^•'^^ ^""<t''' 2.
^rf^^T'''
«^ <yf!y^
^w-sy-

¶8

¶9

Smt. Sete Bai, W/o. Tularain , aged about 40 years, R/o Vtllage Mohlai (Kinjoli) Police Chowki Bastar, DistrictBa'star (C.G.). • VERSUS Ganesh Ram S/o. Maikra@ Mahesh Rara, aged about 27 years, R/o. Village Muli Police Chowki Bakawand District Bastar (C.G.) (Driver of the vehicle)

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

Rakesh kumar Uraar Vaishay S/b. Banshidhar Umarvaishay, R/o. Power House chowk, Shiv Mandir Jagdalpur District Bast.ar (C.G.) (Owner of the Vehicle)

¶12

Branch Manager

¶13

The New India Insurance Co. Ltd.

¶14

Branch office, Jagdalpur, District -Bastar (C.G.)

¶15

MEMCLOF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173J,2LOFJ1£EMO_TQJ?. 1 T1~-tT TT-^T TTt ^£^.

¶16

¶17

HIGH COURT OF CKHATTISOAKK AT BILASFUR

¶18

5.T.A. (Ci ??0. 847 OF 2011

¶19

AFPELLANT./ (OiFiier?

¶20

KaKCKtl i\illU!U~ Uutf:r Vaisnva

¶21

versiia

¶22

RJB3°ONDE?<TS

¶23

Smt. Set" Byj. yiiu ouiftrs.

¶24

M.A. iC'i N0. 916 OF 2011

¶25

APPSLLANT/

¶26

"?TUS.. .~*-r-ie ny?.

¶27

^/iZut211331i. i

¶28

Versas

¶29

RBSPOKDBTiTS

¶30

BS.A. (C) KO. 848 OF 2011

¶31

.iuPPEl<I-ANT7

¶32

Rakcsii Kiiuiar L'uiar Vaisuva

(Owner!

Vers-as

RB3FOHDBSTS

AFPEALS UND5R SSCTIOS 173 OF THE ?T!OTOR VBKICLSS ACT._1SSS

¶37

D.B.: Hoa'bie Dr. I.'W. Qilddnsi &

¶38

Hoa'ble Shsi G. SIlaliafuddin, uJ.

¶39

p3f<e»e£it; Shri Vishuu Ko^lita; cou!:i^e:l yji t^ue- ^ppellsujt/owrier iu •'f~^ V-^« Q/l~?''^ni1 9- RAQ/'I^ iVi./^.t^-; i^US.O-t^ / ^U 1 JL Ot) O-i-0/^t^l ±*

¶40

Slii'i P. K. Tulsiyajii, counsel for respondeats No. 1 iii M.A.fC) No.847 aiid appeUaixt ia M.A.fQ No.915/2011

¶41

Sl'u'i Dayliralli Gupt-a, couusel for respoudent ?vo.3/ Insin-ancF- Comnanv.

¶42

ORA£GRDER (Passed^{oa9thdayofFebrKarv,} 2012$ <'"-

¶43

Fet Dr. I.M. Quddusl, J.

¶44

lliese appeals ii&ve beea iu.ed agaiast tue uiipugiieu awai'u dAtcd 30-04-2011 pASsed by Tliii'd Addl. Motoi" Accideut ClalLQ.s •Tribunal, Jagualpur iu CIaic.1 Casc Nos.239/2009 (Smt. Sete bai vsGftjifsTi Rain cuid otii.srs)". SLiicl Claini Ca.se Nc'.2ul/2009 iBaluajii Bas.bel vs. Gaij.eshia.cl aiid otne.rsi. Suice aU these aope<"us ?:uise oi.-it of tue ^dnit- acciueot oiet wu'i bv Tiiic]? begirij''^

¶45

registratioii No.C.G.17-H/0832. they a^'e uehig dlsposed of^y thi.s eouiLuou oraer.

¶46

M.A(C).No.847/2011 has beeu fued by the owner challeng'u-ig the UabJllU- whereas M.A(C).916/2011 has been fiJe.u bv t3'.ic Lii'tired clfcLLn3aj.it for cTi.h-^riCSBient.of t^je fpAant~(iQi. Botl"' the apueals relate to CTaim Cas<- No.235/2009. M.AfQ. No.848/2013 Eled bv ti-ie owner i-eMtes to aaim Case No.261/2009.

¶47

Brleffacts oftJlie case a»orotected bv t-he claiLaants ai'e tliat on 2-3-2008 at aboiit 4-30 p.ui., Savltri & Raiyamati were tl'aveniug as labuLU-'> in the offenduig vehlcle ti'uck and Sflit. Sete Bed & Motl Beu weie waituig for velilcle at village MuU ui'ider a U'ee. for tcLkuig tlielT ourclia.sed goods. At uic saiiie ti.uic, the offendiiig vehicle truck bearuig registratlou No.C.G.17-K/0852, whlcli w^a-s beiiig driveri by Gfciiiesli Kaiu. iii SL iSiSn. oiiu. iiegligeiit lu.aiiiiei sti'uck agaiiist tlie ti'ee uiider wuicli Smt. Sete Bai. aud iviou r5ai were siTLUig aiici waiTiiig lor nie vcD.icie, as a I'esuiT 01 ^^lilch- Savlti'i OG RaivajjLi.citi. clled 011 tlie spot, aiici Sete Bsu. & Moti Bai sustauied gnevous ujLJurACs; and tlieieaji'er Motl 3aJ. aJso dled durujg coui'se ofticatment. Report ofthe irjcirleot was louged jii Police Statioii Na.e'-EiiTiar and the criiTQLe vvas re'&istered ijnder Sections 279. 337 aud 304A ofthe ?PC.

¶48

o. Claim Petjtion No.239/2009 has been filed by mjured clainiant Smt. Sete Bai under Section l iou of tbe Motor Veiii. c -1l es Act, 1988 (for short^'fljc Act, 1988') clalmuig compensation of Rs.ll,40,000/'- wherelu leai-ued CIFU.GOS Tribuual has graiited a total suui of Rs.1,69,510/- aloj-ig witli iriterest @ 6% per aiiuiuuL whlch she 1s entitled to receive froui uorL-applicaG.ts No. 1 & 2 jouitly^{ajidseverally.} Beuig aggrieveel; tbe owiier oftlie ojTeriduig veliicle ti'uck nanieiv Ralcesh Kiuiiai' Uinarvaishva fileu M.AiCi No.847/2011. Claimailt Scte Bal has also filed aii appeal, M.A(C) No.51u/2011 for enuanceinent ofcorupensation.

¶49

Claim petition No.261/2009 has been filed by claimant Balu'aiia clsffmu^g conipeasation ef Rs.3,70,.000/- for tbe death of his wtfe Raivamati vff'nci'eui leat'nrd Claims Tribi.inal »v tuc ijaQpugned a^vsrrl awajTled a total suui of Rs.2.10,000/- ;?Jouywitji iuterest (B: 6"'o w.c anniun fasteui.ne liabiLiti"^rioon t3ic .uon-

¶50

&i:

¶51

appUcaiits No. 1 & 2 jouitly arid severfedly. Beiug aggrleved. tlie owuer has fued M.A.I'C;) No.848/2011 challcnglug liatiility m wi.tlcu claiQj.aj'it Bali. Rani Baghel has also uled cross-objections for eiiliajiicenient of couaDeiisa.tion awaji'ued bv tlie Claiuas

¶52

3< It 1s evldeut tliat siricft all tlie &bove C'IMUJI petltlons arise OIIT OT SM-OJ e acc in e o T ro <="T ^yjin uv T.D e c'Heuci .1 D s' '^/'c' Litcic, TB s:Cl?ilD;ts TribuijKj uss tried tl'jeixi tc1&'rtber. Toe. Trnj'i.ii'i^u }'tss 1'i?-ld ft'iat the ofTendmg Tmck beagng Reg.a.no.I7-H/0852 rtriveu by non-aorutcajjt iio.l hi a rash :~Lud jjeyUQ'ent i'oanDer stn^ck aga-iiist toe ti'ee in vul.age TvTull; as a result of which RauBwti; Saviu'i auci Moti Bai died and Sete Bal Sttstpuned luiunes and tliere was no b^'each of c-oudltions of U'LC- Insui'an.ce Policv, Tbe ClaLuas Tribuaal has awaided a total eouiperiLsatiou of Rs.1,69,510/- to tiic iujui'ed claimaiit Sete Bai ln Claim. Petitiou No.259/09; Rs.3,48,000/- to tlic clalmai-its ofdeceased Moti Bal Ii.1 CIalui Peutiori iN0.260/20Q9; Rs.2,10,000/- to tlie clcdiD.aiits of decea-sed Raliriati iu. Claijai Petluou No.261/2009 yjKi Rs.3,24,000/'- to tl-ie claimai-its of deceaseu Savitri iu ClalruL Petitiou No.262/2009.

¶53

¶54

G. We have }'ieajTl leai'ned co'tTosel 0ppeajt"Jng for tjie p^A'ues aijd penisecl toe jecoMs ofuie Ciamis TjTo'nnaj.

¶55

G. We have }'ieajTl leai'ned co'tTosel 0ppeajt"Jng for tjie p^A'ues aijd penisecl toe jecoMs ofuie Ciamis TjTo'nnaj. 7. So feu- as it n-lates to Claiui Case No.259/2009, 0.1 ttjc hasts* oftt'ic evidejice ,av&[j?iblc ou i'f-cord. it is cICAi tJ'jytt u^iu^uv, yi plea^{-wastakenbyinjiu'ed} r'lau.Tiaj'it Sete Ba.i that siie was tr'avejriag •4+ ^-——-—T-—. Lu. tae sald o'ueudiijg vehicle ajid eai'lier tu.e FIR was lodged witu t}ie "sajcae corttcrits as pleaded in tlie clai.ru petitioa whereas^ tlie said plKA was aj'u.erided later oa statiiig tliat t-lairnant Sete Bai aild oae Moti Bai wei'e waituig for vchicle under ^1-a ti'ee at vUla.ge Muli fbr takuig tlielr piu'cliased goous. The Claiuis Triuuual has iield that fbe owner of the ttiick bas paid Rs.100/- as preuuuni for coveriug tbe rlsk ofowuer/drivei aud by paylug exti'a preuaruui ofRs.5Q/-; ris>< ofUvo otjter ei'aployees uas also been CtWercd, thereby tiie Cla.ims Tin-r]iaal l-ias l.'icld tl-iat Tlie ilsk of t\vo person.s ti'^ivejliiig ui Tli.e oueiidlng veliicle truck I'fas

¶56

'&tE-:;^..

¶57

S. However, so tar as uie ai.iestiou of auaiituiu of coLupeiisatioii is concernecj, Tlie Claluis Trib'iina.l lias held that furjicTioncLi dlsabUin^; as cjRifjied by Uie a.ppeuaji.t. uas iiot beea seen wlille aw^iuuig tbe ajiiou-Qt of cojTipensatioti. The ?vledlcal Boai'U has given cct'tlflcate uiat uijured Sete BAI has sustained perniaueQ.t disabillty to the extcut of 70'D/o aiid accoixlingly. tlie TliouHal liy.s llxecl tllc qufcuj.tuii.i. It appears uiat tu.e Claiuis Tribunal has iiot properly d&teriit.uied the loss ofeariiiag capaclly wltli 1'eiereuce to the fuiictional disabilitv.

¶58

We are of Uie opiiiiou fllat tlie loss of eainuig capacity is iiot tlie suustitute for tbe percciitage of physlcal dlsableuient wliicJ'i is ojie of tlje ffcictors to be tstkeu uit.o accoiint. TrLere are elso several fyctors whicli. Ai'e reciuu'ed t.o l^e talceii luto consideratton for detei'niLa.lng tlic aijaoiiut of co-LDpeiisatlorA. Thc pernianent. disability bas a direc-t relatiojisliiD with ttie loss of Um1:i. Tlierefore, tlje Tribi.inaS sljcailcl ]jave takeu into considerfcitiou tue relevant factors before awsu'diDg coj3ipensatioa. Iii thls regai'cl, the law laid down ny Hou olc t3.ie Supj'i-toe Court in CMSR oC.KatiotxaI Insurance CoiBpany Uit. Vs. Mulsasir Ahtned aad another (2007) 2 SCC 349 (Fara 8) HII<I OrfenfcaS Itisurance Co. Ltd Vs. SIohd. ?i'aslir and anothei?, 2009 AIR SCW 371? (Paras 8 to 14 & l.G) is also to be foBowed while detemiuiuig tiie conipeusatlou in case of persoual injuiy. The Tuuiinal sball also conduct enqauy as would be necessaiy for tlie purpose of uctcriiuuauon of facts as provided iii Rule 226 oftlie C.G. Motor Vehlcle Rules, 1994 aiiu sections 168 & 169 offl-ie. Motor Velucles Act, 1988 to aScertaia fllc tnifh regarding flie lajurles sustaiiied bv thc claiuuant aiid tlieit effect especiaUv tlie extent of perixiauent disaoUlty.

¶59

^— 10. Fui-Hier iu Ral Kv.nuir -vs- sfau Kumar and another riecided on 38U1 October. 2010 and reporteri in IV fZOlGi AcdSent &, Cotfifterisatlon Casea S1S (SC), Koiil-tle tbe Apex Coui't uas held that tbc claim. petltiou is aot a civil suit whlch almost depeiiils upon the eviueuce led by ti7ie paj'ties oruy. Tlictefoi'ie, it is tlie duty of tlie Triburial to conduct a proper cuuuiry irito the clalui for deterrniniug tae just compensaUon . The SuDreiue Court has further hclu ia para 11 tbat while dealitig

¶60

.•'i^

¶61

wlfh persoual uijuiy cases, the Tribuiial shoulcl preferably equiD itsetfwith a Medical Dictioaarv aiid a Haudbook for evaluatioii of Derniaiient Duvsical impairnient ffor exauaule thc Manual for Evaluatiou of Perniaaent Phvsical IiuDairiucut for OilhoDedlc Sui^eoiis. pi'epared by Aiiierican Aca^eniy 01 Orthopedic Surgeoas or its Iiidiaii equlvaleat osc otud autliofi^ed texts) for unclerstajLjdiag tae jnedical evldeoce and a.ssessu'ig the payslcal aud functtOD.suL disaljuJtv". Tlie Trib'urAal J3j.av also keeo UL view uje fu'st scued'iilc to tlie Wor)<uieo's CoiuDRnsatJou Act. 1923 WtiicO. e'ives some inrUcation abont the extent of of-j'titpjient rlisanUitv in di'fTerenT types of kuiu'ies, ui tbe cs.se of workiueu. If a DocTor givirig eviflence uses tecliiilcsu. jGD.edic^l terms^ t1~ie Triounal shoLiJd Instruct liiui to state la acldltion> ui siniple riou-xuedlcal terins, flie natiire ailu tiie effect of fhe iniui'y. If a doctor gives evidence about the perct:iite.ye oiperi]aajieiitdisability,theii'ibunfcu. ii.asto seek clariJicauou as to whetlier sucu uercentas;e of uisabuity is the fuiictional disabilitv with refereuce to fhc whole bodv pr whetlier it 1s orily wlth refei'cnc-e to a.1mib. If tlie pcrceritage of perijianeiit dlsauUity is stated wltli r^ference to a Uixib, flie Tribun.al wUl have to seek tlie doctor's opiuion as to wucflici^itis possible to deduce the coiTespondiag functional pernianent dlsabilitv" with reference to the whole bodv aiv-i if so the pcrct-TiLaRc. (Etnpfeasis snppliedl

¶62

In view of fhe above, we are of the fiirthe r opinion that tbe uiatter reqiures reconsideratioii at tjie erjd of uie Tnoiiiiaj. Accoiijmely, we allow M.A.?C)No.847/'201l & M.A(C5No.9l6/201J iu paj't, set aSide tbe inipugned awanl uated 30-4-2011 so far as it relates to Clajin Pet'rtion ?fe.259/2009 aiid tJne. matter 1s reruitted baek to the Ciaiius ~ Tribiuial for the of purpose recalciilating Tlic quaiituna:--of couipensatioa on tlic basis ot fLiiictioaal disauility and for detet'mining the loss of earnuig capacify suuereci by claunaut Sete Bal.

¶63

1.2. Pai'ties shall appeai' bcfore tiie Claims Triounal ou '>f\ ^ *>f>.^ ^ :..••' OU-O-.AVi.^S.T"

¶64

Recoids of fhe Claltus Tribuual be sent back witliout jLirtber delav.

¶65

¶66

Howe-v-er, so faias It relates to M.A(C). 848/2011 conslderlng tiie eutli'ie evldence av.aliable oa cecord. vve do not fLud aiiy irifu'mily iji the imijiigned awaj'd dated 30-4-2011 passed in Clalua Petltioa No.261/2009. Tlierefrn-e. M.A.faNo.848/2011 fi]ed by Rakesh Ki.imaT Umaivaishya, ovFner of The offending vehicle u-uck aiid tiie cross-object.ious filed by clalinailt Bali Ra rn Baghel aie Uable to ue and are hereby uismissed. No oitler asja.

¶67

costs.

¶68

S6Jl.M.QUddusl G.Minbapddffl Judge Judge

¶69

Sete Bai v. Ganesh Ram and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sete Bai v. Ganesh Ram 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

Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Smt.Gulab Bai Soni and Others

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jhadudas and Ors.

Jhadudas and Others Vs Dayaram and Another

Rakesh Kumar Umar Vaishya Vs Bali Ram Baghel and Ors.

Smt. Maheshwari Verma Vs Rajendra Kumar Sai and Ors.

Rakesh Kumr Umar Vaishya Vs Smt. Sete Bai and Ors.