Allowed

Bajrang Lal Agrawal v. the New India Insurance Co.Ltd.and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC5 Mar 2014MAC/514/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows the appeal in part, modifying an award from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. It upholds the rejection of certain repair bills but directs an enhancement of Rs. 20,000 compensation for lost material and vehicle downtime, with interest at 6% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Award modified; enhancement of Rs. 20,000 towards loss of material and vehicle downtime, carrying interest at 6% per annum from the date of application.

Bajrang Lal Agrawal Vs the New India Insurance… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR C.G.

¶2

M.A^No^./. /.20Q6^J . 1.

¶3

APPELLANT <APPLICANT)

¶4

Bajrang Lal Agrawal S/o Shadhuram Agrawal age. 55, Occupation - Business Resident of ketka road. Surjpur, Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh)

¶5

Versus

¶6

, RESPONDENTS 1,
<>

¶7

Q-2;
^- / /
^//
^^
^?
3^
^

¶8

New India Insurance Company • Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Divisional office Raipur, First Floor madina building Jail Road. Raipur(C.G.)

¶9

M/s Vijay Kumar Ingole S/o Attmaram Ingole, Occupation -Business, Sai Baba Travels Resident^- D.C.Road Ambikapur Surguja (C.G.) R.Dilip Kumar S/o Rupal Swami, Age 38 Yrs, occupation - Driver, Resident D.C. road Ambikapur Distt. Surguja (C.G.)

¶10

MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL lf3 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988, AGAINST

¶11

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶12

SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker

M.A.fCl No. 514/2006

APPELLANT

Bajrang Lal Agrawal

VERSUS

RESPQNDENTS

New India Insurance Company Ltd. & others

¶19

Mr. A.K. Yadav counsel for the appellant.

¶20

Mr. Shri Kumar Agrawal senior counsel assisted by Shri Anand Gupta counsel for respondent No. 1. None for respondents No. 2 & 3.

¶21

ORDER

¶22

(05.03.2014)

¶23

Appellant 1n this case is the owner of dumper bearing registration No. CG15-A/0842. On 14.4.2004 when the driver of dumper was carrying the mixture of tar and broken stones, it was dashed by a bus bearing registration No. CG-04/8881 as a result of which driver of the dumper namely Shankar Rai died and the dumper got damaged.

¶24

Claim case No. 45/2006 was filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 7,23,667 towards damage of the dumper and the material loaded on it. By the award impugned, the Tribunalhas awarded Rs. 50,000 forthe damage ofthe property.

¶25

Counsel for the appellant submits that the bills (Ex. P-1 to P- 16) for Rs. 2,11,7,55 towards the material and Rs. 80,000 towards

¶26

s ..":">-^^ \ I. t. ^^\ ^ •^-^ ..^ l :'^ '^:^-?--'' ^y ^^^•^

¶27

-1

¶28

mechanical charges as claimed by the appellant should have been awarded without making any curtailment. He submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards the damage to the property i.e. mixture of tar and broken stones. According to counsel for the appellant, the appellant could not use the dumper for about 40 days and therefore on this head also reasonable compensation should have been awarded.

¶29

On the other hand, counsel for the insurance company supports the award impugned and submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

¶30

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

¶31

In paragraph No. 28 of the impugned award, the Tribunal has considered the bills submitted by the appellant regarding repair of the dumper. Tribunal has not believed the bill Ex. P-12 for Rs. 90,000 because the person jssuing the same has not been examined and secondly it has not been mentioned in it as to what amount has been spent in the complete repair work including denting painting of the steel^{cabin.Likewise,accordingtothe} Tribunal, the bills Ex. P-13 for Rs. 35,000 and Ex. P-16 for Rs. 60,000 cannot be believed because they also do not contain the particulars of heads under which this amount has been spent. Findings recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph No. 28 of the

¶32

-tz>-

¶33

impugned award in respect of the aforesaid bills which were submitted by the appellant appear to be just and proper.

¶34

So far as the material i.e. mixture of tar and broken stones loaded in the dumper is concerned, though the appellant has not proved the actual loss suffered by him yet considering the fact in particular seizure memo on record it can be presumed that the material loaded in the dumper got scattered on the ground on account of the accident and became useless, this Court feels it proper to award Rs. 10,000 for the same. Though the appellant has not adduced enough evidence to show that the dumper was not in use for 40 days, this Court awards Rs. 10,000 on this count keeping in view the fact that the said dumper might have been out of use for some days if not as pleaded by the appellant.

¶35

The Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000 towards the damage of the dumper. This apart, this Court awards Rs. 20,000 as mentioned above towards^{lossofmaterialandalso} towards the vehicle being out of use for some days. This enhanced amount would carry interest at the^rateof6% per^annumfromthe date of application.

¶36

Appeal thus allowed in part and the award stands modified as

¶37

above.

¶38

Sd/pritinker Diwaker Judge

Bajrang Lal Agrawal v. the New India Insurance Co.Ltd.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bajrang Lal Agrawal v. the New India Insurance Co.Ltd.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

The Oriental Insurance Com. Ltd. Vs Smt. Wetti Hungi and Ors.

Uttam Kumar Vs Ramkisun and Others

Arvind Kumar Dewangan Vs Executive Engineer, Public Works Department B/R Division And Ors.

Sardar Kuljeet Singh Kohli Vs Smt.Rajkumari Gupta and Others

Smt.ram Bai And Ors. Vs Kirti Kumar Soni And Ors.

Pawan Kumar Tiwari Vs Chandra Shekhar Sahu And Ors.