Disposed

M/s Mahaveer Construction Company v. Naresh Kumar and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC2 Apr 2013MAC/230/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court heard an owner's appeal challenging the quantum of Rs. 38,750/- compensation awarded for 28% permanent disability. The Court noted undisputed negligence and insurance liability, observing the Tribunal awarded a meager sum despite the injury level.

What did the court decide?

None specifically granted for reduction in the text provided; the order discusses the quantum but details of final disposition or remand are obscured.

M/s Mahaveer Construction Company Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2013)

¶1

•^

¶2

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶3

(^) gm. MISC. APPEAL N0.^{^^^/2013} fS.B.l

¶4

APPELLANT M/s Mahaveer Construction Company, through. its Proprietor Shantilal Vohra, son of Pukhrajji Vohra, aged about 54 years, Vardhman Nagar, D ^ QLl^.---""«',"f ^^?^25? Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and presentea "»w;'__J..t..^"-""oated-...^r/-r^^ District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh fOwner)

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

RESPONDENTS:-

¶7

Naresh Kumar, son of Bislal, Caste Nishad, aged about 40 years, resident of Village Mohla, Police Station & Tehsil Mohla, Ditrict Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh fClaimant)

¶8

The Branch Manager, the New India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶9

flnsurerl

¶10

Awadhram, son of Agamdas, aged about 44 years^ C/o M/s Mahaveer Construction Company, Vardhaman Nagar, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

fDriver)

^Jt>

<^^

13V ^3IH3A yOiOW .
IH1 =10 £^T NOI133S ^OW UaaNII 1V3ddV LJSIW

¶15

'^ y

¶16

¶17

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶18

iyi.A.(C)No.230of2013

¶19

APPELLANT M/s. Mahaveer Construction Owner Company

¶20

Versus

¶21

RESPONDENTS Naresh Kumar and others. Claimant

¶22

Miscellaneous apoeal underSection 173 oftheMotor VehidesAct.1988 (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.)

¶23

Present : Mr. MaSay Kumar Bhaduri, counsel for the appeliant.

¶24

ORAL ORDER (02.04.2013)

¶25

Heard on admission.

¶26

This is owner's appeal against the award dated 08.01.2013 passed by First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, 'the Rajnandgaon (for short Tribunal') in Claim Case No.24/2012.

¶27

As against the compensation of Rs.13,77,000/- claimed by respondent No.l/claimant by flling claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, t98Q (for short 'the Act') for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 3.6.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 38,750/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of cfaim petition till its actual payment.

¶28

The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held : the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent drivjng

¶29

^&fei/-.:L:--^^^i^i-S£%&^^^

¶30

of Metadoor 709 bearing registration No.C.G.0811 by its driver i.e. respondent No. 3- Awadhram Sahu; ctaimant sustained multiple injuries resulting in permanent disabiljty to the extent of 28%; the respondent No.2/The New India Insurance Company Limited not liable for payment of compensation as the claimant was sitting in the offending vehicle i.e. goods carrying vehicle as a gratuitous passenger; and assessed and awarded aforementioned sum as compensation to respondent No. 1 /claimant holding the appellant/owner liable for payment of compensation.

l-^

The only submission made by Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is shockingly on higher side which deserves to be suitably reduced.

¶37

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the impugned award.

¶38

The facts that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle Metadoor and that the respondent No2/lnsurance company is not liable for payment of compensation are now not in dispute.

¶39

Although the Tribunal, on the basjs of evidence adduced by the parties, has came to a conclusion that the claimant sustained multiple injuries resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 28%, even though has awarded a meager sum

¶40

"~—^:*<^«.KraBi

¶41

•';®^.^i@l^i^t^i^;^]^

¶42

¶43

; '^^" i^^^^fii?ilfilSiiSS8S^SI^%

311 ilf^Bii Bll

El^.R:!

v^ '^M "'^

I
^.
1 t 1 ?s
g §
t a> 1
s §
i.
^ •s"
1 gQ.®.
i. 8 ?? t
^
i
£
^. :?.8) s.^ s
1
^ §
j
3 5S1 ^ g
i1
<<:
1 ?
1
3: 1.1
i
^w ^
s il
® t ffi.
Q;
SL
Q i=• <0 1
^

M/s Mahaveer Construction Company v. Naresh Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Mahaveer Construction Company v. Naresh 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

Vishal Singh Vs Khushiram Prajapati and Ors.

Dev Raj and Ors. Vs Nanki and Ors.

Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Sarojani and Ors.

Ratu Ram @ Rajkumar Vs Anil Das Panika and Ors.

Abdul Rafiq Vs Raju Yadav and Others

Vijay Rameshwar Singh Maravai Vs Ramashankar Pradhan and Others