Dismissed

Shambhu Rao v. Mohd.Tahir Khan @ Raju and Others

Chhattisgarh HC18 Jun 2012MAC/982/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissing the appellant's appeal for enhancement of compensation in a motor accident claim, the Court upheld the Tribunal's award of Rs.30,400/- as just and proper. The Court rejected the claim of serious injury or permanent disability, basing its decision on the nature of injuries sustained and the finality of the insurer's position.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Shambhu Rao Vs Mohd.Tahir Khan @ Raju and Others — Insurance | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

<<^

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BLLASPUR

¶3

DIVISION BENCH

¶4

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

¶5

Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 982 of 2009

¶6

Appellant	Shambhu Rao, agedabout26 years,
Claimant	s/o Lakshmaiya, r/o R.E.S. Colony,
	post and thana Bijapur, district
	Bijapur C.G.

¶7

		VERSUS
Respondents Non-claimants	1.	Mohd. Tahir khan @ Raju s/o Mohd. Jamil Khan, r/o post Bijapur, district Bijapur C.G. (Driverofthe vehicle)
	2.	Kamlesh Kela s/o Aaidan Kela, r/o post Bijapur, district Bijapur, C.G. (Ownerofthe vehicle)
	3.	The United India Assurance Co. Ltd., through Branch Office Anupama Chowk, post Jagdalpur, district Bastar C.G.

¶8

Memoof appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act

¶9

Present: Shri P.K. Tulsyan, counsel for the appellant. Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3.

¶10

ORDER

¶11

(18thJune,2012)

¶12

The following order of the Court was passed by

¶13

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.

¶14

Appellant/ claimant Shambhu Rao is seeking enhancement

¶15

of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident

¶16

s:''

¶17

M.A.C.NO. 982 of 2009

¶18

Claims Tribunal, Dantewada (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 24.01.2009, passed in Claim Case No.16/2006.

¶19

As against the compensation of Rs. 11,44,0007- 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 09.05.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.30,400/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

¶20

The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.CG18-ZC-0405, liable to pay compensation to the claimant.

¶21

As the insurer of the above offending vehicle Truck has not filed any appeal against the impugned award challenging the above finding recorded by the Tribunal, the same now has attained finality.

¶22

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 spent on treatment, awarded Rs.14,700/towards medical expenses; Rs.5,300/- for loss of income during the period of treatment; Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.3,000/- for attendant; and Rs.2,400/- for special diet. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.30,400/as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. The Tribunal

¶23

^s^-^-,-"^1 "'"^ "I '^ '^'-^^ f 1 "&<^.^>"

¶24

MAC.No. 982 of 2009

¶25

further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.30,400/- @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.

¶26

Shri P.K. Tulsyan, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.30,400/- only, though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 32%.

¶27

Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.30,400/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Claimant Shambhu Rao was aged about 26 years on the date of the accident. At the relevant time, he was working as S.P.0. In his initial medical examination report (MLC) - Ex.P/6 only two external injuries were noted by the Doctor. Of these,one was a lacerated wound on the left leg, whereas the other was an abrasion on the left elbow joint. On x-ray examination, no bony injury was detected by the Doctor. The police after completion of the investigation filed charge-sheet against the driver of the Truck for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC only, meaning thereby that the injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor accident were simple in nature.

MAC.No. 982 of 2009

"^ ^-r/ ~^^^.^^:::

Surprisingly, AW2 Dr. V.K. Jha, of Maharani Hospital, Jagdallpur issued a certificate in the year 2007 i.e. after aboutthree years of the accident certifying thepermanent disability to the extent of 32% assuming that the daimant sustained fractures in his legs in the motor accident. The bills and vouchers produced by the claimant before the Tribunal in regard to the medical expenses were to the extent of Rs.14,693/-only and the Tribunal has awarded Rs.14,700/-towards medical expenses.

¶32

The compensation of Rs.30,400/-awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case in general and that the injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor accident were simple in nature in particular, we are satisfied, is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case and does not call for any enhancement in this appeal.

¶33

As we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

¶34

No order as to costs.

¶35

Sd/Chief Justice

¶36

Sd/R.N. Chandrakar Judge

¶37

subbu

Shambhu Rao v. Mohd.Tahir Khan @ Raju and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shambhu Rao v. Mohd.Tahir Khan @ Raju 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. Jimat Bai and Ors. Vs Mohit Kumar Sahu and Ors.

Devki Bai Vs Manharan and Others

Sukhu Ram and Another Vs Man Singh and Others

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

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mukhtiyar Singh and Others

Mukhtiyaar Singh and Others Vs Billu @ Sukhdev Singh Kanwar and Others