Allowed

Jitendra Kumar Sahu v. Dharam Prakash Tiwari and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC5 Feb 2014MAC/1177/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Court enhanced compensation awarded to a motor accident victim. The Court adjusted amounts for loss of income, permanent disability, pain and suffering, diet, and conveyance, granting additional Rs. 42,000 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation to Rs. 81,700 plus additional Rs. 42,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization.

Jitendra Kumar Sahu Vs Dharam Prakash Tiwari and… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTCSGAR

¶2

^ MISELLANEOUS APPEAL (C) N0. - ^ ^^Op 2011 ^'

¶3

APPELLANT Jitendra Kumar Sahu, S/o Kishan Lal CLAIMANT Sahu aged about 35 years, R/o - Village— Arand, Post - Basin, Police Station -Rajim, bistrict - Raipur (C.G.)

¶4

VERSUS

¶5

R6SPONDENTS 1. Dharam Prakash Tiwari, S/o Vishwamohan NON-CLAIMANTS Tiwari, about 40 years, R/o - Near bevi Sampat School, Rajjm, Police Station and Tohsil - Rajim bistrict- Raipur (C.^.) [briver and registered owner of Vehicle Jeep bearing registration No. C6-04/ZA/2184]

¶6

¶7

The New India Assurance Company Limited, thcough Divisional Manager, Divisional office No. 2. Raipur, Tahsil <& Disthct - Raipur (C.G.) [Insurer of Vehicle Jeep bearing registration No. CG-04/ZA/2184]

¶8

-^rz. o^^{^Y}

¶9

MEMORANbUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTCON 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988

¶10

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶11

SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker

¶12

M.A.(c)No. 1177 of 2011

Aopellant claimant

Jitendra Kumar Sahu

VERSUS

Respondents Dharam Prakash Tiwari and another

¶17

Present:

¶18

/ Shri Tarun Dansena, counsel for the appellant. None for respondent No.1.

¶19

Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No. 2.

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(5.2.2014)

¶22

With theconsent ofthe parties, the matter is heard finally. 02. On 29.8.2008 the appellanVclaimant was driving his motorcycle and at that time a jeep bearing registration No.C.G. 04-Z.A.-2184 was going ahead of him. If is alleged that the driver of the jeep had suddenly applied the brake, as a result of which motorcycle of the appellant got dashed against the said jeep and he sustained number of injuries including fracture of left tibia. He remained in hospital for more than 10 days and during this period, he was also operated by the doctor and a rod was inserted.

¶23

A claim casewas put forth by the appellant/claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 5 lacs under various heads.

¶24

According to the claimant, at the relevant time he was doing the work of tiles cutting and polishing and was also operating the machine as mechanic. Further claim of the claimant is that on account of permanent disability suffered by him to the extent of 17% vide Ex.P/1, he is neither able to perform his routine work, nor can sit cross-legged on the floor nor can climb stairs freety. It is also claimed that for about six months, he could not attend his work.

¶25

In support of his case, the claimant has examined himself as

—2_-

:,y^{-^:} f- 1 ^.

]

^"^

AW-2, Dr. G.S. Bachu asAW-1, who had issued the disability certificdte—'^ (Ex.P/1)^{and AmitSonias AW-3,employer of theclaimant.}

¶32

By the impugned award, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.39,700/in favour of the claimant. The appellanVclaimant has filed this appeal for enhancement ofthe amount ofcompensation.

¶33

Contention of learned counsel for the appellant is as follows:

¶34

(i) that the claimant's monthly income was Rs.6000/- and the Tribunal has erred in law in calculating the same as Rs.3000/and awarding Rs.18,000/- towards loss of income for six months whereas it should have been Rs.36,000/- @ Rs.6,000/- per month;

¶35

(ii) the point of permanent disability of 17% has been completely ignored by the Tribunal and thereby, the claimant has been deprived of compensation which he is entitled to get undei the head of'loss offuture earning capacity";

¶36

(iii) that under the conventional heads,. like pain & suffering, discomfort and mental agony, the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of Rs.5,000/-, which is on the lower side and needs suitable enhancement;

¶37

(iv) the amount towards special diet awarded by the Tribunal i.e. Rs.2,400/- and the amount awarded towards conveyance i.e. Rs.5,600/- are also on the lower side and need to be suitably enhanced.

¶38

On the other hand, learned counsel for therespondents have supported the award impugned.

¶39

So far as the first point raised by the appellant that his monthly income has wrongly been calculated by the Tribunal is concerned, from the documents Ex.P/23 and P/24, it is apparent that the same employer has given two certificates mentioning therein that the claimant was being paid Rs.3,000/- per month as salary and this fact has also been admitted by the claimant. As such, the Tribunal was justified^{inassessingthemonthlyincomeof the} claimant as Rs.3,000/, and awarding Rs.18,OOQ/-towards loss of income for six months.

¶40

^,^^^^
f I-TI
;: ^ "18 J

¶41

As regards loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability to the extent of 17%, considering the fact that there is evidence on record that the claimant was unable to perform his routine and mechanical work in a comfortable manner, the claimant is entitled to a lump sum amount of Rs.20,000/- under this head.

¶42

Under the conventional heads, the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of Rs.5,000/-. Considering the fact that the claimant remained hospitalized for more than 10 days and could not attend his duties for six months, this amount is also enhanced to Rs.15,000/- from Rs.5,000/-.

¶43

So far as the cimount awarded towards nutritionat diet is concerned, considering the value of rupee at the relevant time, the amount awarded under this head appears to be on the lower side and is definitely required to be enhanced suitably. Accordingly, the same is enhanced from Rs.2,400/- to Rs.10,000/-.

¶44

As regards the amount awarded towards conveyance, considering the documents from Ex.P/25 to P/32, the claimant is also entitled for amount of Rs.10,000/instead of Rs.5,600/- towards conveyance.

¶45

The amount i.e. Rs.8,700/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses appears to be just and proper and needs no interference.

¶46

On the basis of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.81,700/whereas the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.39,700/-. Thus, the claimant is entitled to have an additional sum of Rs.42,000/- as compensation with interest @ 7.5 per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.

¶47

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the award impugned is . modified to the extent indicated above.

¶48

Sd/pritinker^Diwaker Judge

¶49

Jitendra Kumar Sahu v. Dharam Prakash Tiwari and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar Sahu v. Dharam Prakash Tiwari 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

Pawan Kumar Tamrakar Vs Smt. Dhaneshwari Bai Sinha and Ors.

Prem Kumar Megi Vs Satish Sankhala

The New India Ass.Co.Ltd.Bilaspur Vs Smt. Sam Bai and Others

Balsingh and Ors. Vs Lalit Kumar Sinha and Anr.

Pradeeep Enmanual Robinson Vs Addl. Superintending Engineer and Ors.

Mahadev Dhruve Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.