The High Court allowed an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award, holding that further compensation was necessary. The court directed the respondents to deposit an additional sum with interest.
An additional sum of Rs. 50,000/- with six percent interest from the date of claim application directed to be deposited by the insured.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Misc. Appeal (C) No. 332 of 2017
Appellant/Claimant
Versus
Insurer of the offending vehicle
---Respondents
| For appellant - |
Shri Karan Kumar Bahrani, Advocate |
|---|---|
| For respondent No.1- | Shri Pravin Dhurandhar, Advocate |
| For respondent No.2- | Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate |
Order on Board by Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
05/10/2023
This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act (for short “MV Act”) is against the impugned award dated 10.11.2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short “Tribunal”) Dhamtari, CG, in Claim Case No. 80/2015. By this award, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 12,100/- in favour of the appellant/claimant aged about 40 years at the relevant time who suffered injuries in a road accident, payable by the driverowner and the insurer (respondents 1 and 2 respectively), jointly and severely.
2
in a rash and negligent manner. In the said accident Jagatram Sahu suffered serious injuries and succumbed to the same while being under treatment. Appellant suffered grievous injuries and permanent disablement.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge
Jyotishi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was adequate and sufficient to meet the ends of justice for the appellant who suffered permanent disablement.
Whether the insurer is liable to satisfy the award under the Motor Vehicle Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and othersReferred¶20
(2003) 2 SCC 274 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kamal Nishad
Narad Sahu
The New India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Sachin Singh Rajput
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
