Partly allowed

Vishal Singh v. Khushiram Prajapati and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC1 Apr 2013MAC/272/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the claimant's appeal in part, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal from Rs. 1,65,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/-, including Rs. 35,000/- for unexplored heads of claim.

What did the court decide?

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal was enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application.

Vishal Singh Vs Khushiram Prajapati and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUiz (C. G.1 QVLAJC.) No’. .27...--o L" /2012)

¶2

/2012)

¶3

APPELLANT A2^'PLICANT

¶4

Vishal Singh S/o. M. B. Singh; Aged about — 25 year; R/o — Near Railway Station Kota; Tahsil — Kota; District — Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶5

/ V/s x IRESPONDENTS : 1 . r Khushiram Prajapati S/o

¶6

NON-APPLICANTS f/ R . Late Kallash Kumar Prajapati; Aged about ~ 25 year; R/o Village — Kota, Firangipara; Ward No. — 05; Near hill house; Tahsil ¥ Kota; District — Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶7

2.;

¶8

{g/

¶9

(Driver of the Dumper No. C.G.-12-Z.C./O749) Dipak Singh Kshtiya S/o Rambali Singh -Kshtiya; R/o Village — Kota, Firangipara; Ward No‘. — 05; Tahsil ~ Kota; District a Bilaspur’(C.G.)

¶10

(Owner of the Dumper No. C.G.-,12-Z.C./O749) I.C.I.C.I. Lumbard General Insurance Comyany Limited through Brarrch Manager; Lalganga

¶11

Shoping M01 Complex, G. — I. Road Raipur; District Raipur (C.G.) (insurer of the Dumper No. C.G.—12—Z.C./0749) W“

¶12

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR

¶13

’ VEHICLE ACT- 1988

¶14

HIGH COURT^{OFCHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR}

MA (C)^No.272of2012

APPELLANT

: Vishal Singh

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS Khushiram^{Prajapati&others}

¶20

gAPPEAL^{UNDERSECTION173OFTHEMOTORVEHICLES’ACTI}

¶21

¶22

«(,7

¶23

(iB:^{Hon'bleMr.N.K.Aggrwal,J_.)}

¶24

Present" : Shri Anand Kesharwani,^{Advocatefortheappellam.} Shri Sourabh^{Sharma,Advocateforrespondent No..3.}

¶25

ORAL AWARD

¶26

(Passed^{on01.64.2013)}

9‘“

This is ciaimant’s^{appealseekingenhancementof compensation} awarded by^{theAddl.MotorAccidentClaimsTribunal,Bilaspur} ‘the Tribunal’) in claim case No. 161/2010 vide award (for^short dated 05.04.20}^l.

¶32

As against^{thecompensationofRs.6,60,000t—claimedbythe} appellant/claimant^{byf11ingapplicationunderSection166of the} Motor Vehicles^Act,1988 (for^{short‘MVAct’)fortheinjuries} sustained by him in the motor accident^on 17.11.2008, the Tribunal^{awardedatotalsumofRs.1,65,000/-ascompensation} along with^interest @⁹ percent^perannumfrom the date^of ariplication^{tillitsactual} payment.

¶33

The Tribunal,^{onaclosescrutinyof theevidenceled,held} : the accident^had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of

¶34

Dumper bearing registration No.^{CG-l2—ZC-0749} by^itsdriver Khushiram; appellant sustained multiple injuries in the saiCi accident; respondent No. 3/insurance cempany liable for of compensarion to the claimant as it could not payment establish Violation of policy conditions; and assessed and awarded aforesaid sum as compensation to the appellant/claimant.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant has sustained multiple injuries; has undergone treatment in the Apollo Hospital and has incurred^hugeamount towards treatment, but the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.l,65,000/— which is shockingly on the lower side and deserves to be suitably enhanced. According^to him,^theTribunal should have awarded at least Rs. 2,00,000/- as^{compensation,}

¶36

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing^{fortherespondent} N0. 3/insurance company supported^{theawardimpugnedand} submitted, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has awarded just and proper^{compensationwhichdoes} not call for any interference.

¶37

I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties^and perused the award impugned including records^{of theTribunal.}

¶38

The facts that accident had occurred^{duetorashandnegligent} driving of driver of Dumper and that the insurance^companyis

¶39

liable for payment of compensation to the claimant are now not in dispute.

¶40

Indisputably, the appellant sustained fracture of Jaw and has undergone several operations. As per medical bills produced by him, he sud‘er‘ed medical expenses to the extent ofRs. 1,68,131/however, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. .1,60,000/— towards medical bills and Rs. 5000/on other heads; arid. thus, has awarded only Rs. l,65,000/— as compensation. The Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards pain and su&‘erings, loss of income during treatment, special diet and conveyance. When the matter is examined in the context of above broad features of the case, in my considered opinion, further award of Rs. 35,000/- would make the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation.

¶41

lO. In View of foregoing, the appeal is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs. l,65,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000/-. The appellant is entitled for a further sum of Rs. 35,000/‘ over and above the amount of Rs. l,65,000/— awarded by the Tribunal.

¶42

ll. The above enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 35,000/shall carry interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. Rest of the conditions

Vishal Singh v. Khushiram Prajapati and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Singh v. Khushiram Prajapati 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

Bhajanlal Agrawal Vs State of C.G. and Another

Vinod Jaiswal Vs Jaimun Nisha Anors

Raj Kumar Gupta Vs Arun Kumar Gupta

Dev Raj and Ors. Vs Nanki and Ors.

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

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Thandaram Kurre and Ors.