Partly allowed

Santlal Gupta v. Nehru Lal Yadav

Chhattisgarh HC12 Feb 2024MAC/1238/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor accident appeal against inadequate compensation award for eye injuries. The court held that vision loss could only be ascertained by expert examination and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh determination after allowing further evidence.

What did the court decide?

Appeal partly allowed; matter remanded to MACT Surajpur for fresh adjudication with opportunity to lead further evidence on disability.

Santlal Gupta Vs Nehru Lal Yadav — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MAC No. 1238 of 2019

¶4

1 - Santlal Gupta S/o Shivsharan Gupta Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Shivaripara, Bhagtgaon, P.S. Bhatgaon, DistrictSurajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶5

---- Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 - Nehru Lal Yadav S/o Balrup Yadav Aged About 42 Years R/o Shantipara, Bhatgaon, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.,

¶8

2 - Balrup Yadav S/o Tilak Yadav Aged About 60 Years R/o Shantipara, Bhatgaon, P.S. Bhatgaon, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh..........(Owner),

¶9

3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Office At Manendragarh Road, Near Ambedkar Chowk, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh...............(Insurer),

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

¶12

____________________________________________________________

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput,

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

13.02.2024

¶16

This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) challenging the award dated 01.04.2019 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 66/2018 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Surajpur, CG. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs. 6,36,145/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 80,277/- in favour of the appellant / claimant.

¶17

As per pleadings of the claim application filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, the appellant / claimant met with an accident that took place on 11.11.2017 by rash and negligent driving of the offending

¶18

¶19

vehicle (Scorpio) bearing registration No. CG 15 B 8603 driven by the respondent No. 1 / driver, owned by respondent No. 2 / owner and insured with respondent No. 3 / insurance company. It was further pleaded that as a result of aforesaid accident, the appellant / claimant sustained severe injuries on chin, right eye, nose and other parts of the body. The appellant / claimant was initially treated in SECL Hospital, Bhatgaon and after referral, he was treated in J.J. hospital, Amibikapur and thereafter Ratina Care Hospital, Raipur and further treated in Shanker Netralay Chennai. It was further pleaded that as a result of the accident, the appellant / claimant is not able to see from the left eye. The appellant / claimant was working as a supervisor under the contractor of SECL and was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month and he is not able to see properly from his left eye and difficult to perform his duties and thus total compensation as above stated was claimed.

¶20

The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 / driver and owner remained ex-parte and did not file any written statement.

¶21

The respondent No. 3 / insurance company filed its written statement and in usual course denied the averments of the claim application and pleaded that there is a violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

¶22

The learned Tribunal have framed issues on the basis of the pleadings, decided the same in favour of the appellant / claimant and awarded the above stated compensation.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant / claimant submits that a disability certificate issued from the District Medical Board was filed by the appellant / claimant and exhibited as (Ex.A-60). He further submits that the appellant

¶24

¶25

has also stated in his deposition that he has suffered 30% vision loss hence adequate compensation was not awarded and the Court and learned Tribunal are required to see that just compensation has been awarded and since there is no doctor was examined, he may be given an opportunity to lead further evidence to prove his disability. He further submits that one opportunity may be granted and matter may be remanded back to the learned Tribunal to determine the just compensation.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 vehemently opposes the submission and submits that appellant / claimant had sufficient opportunity to prove his case and examined the doctor who has treated him and who has given the disability certificate and after lapse of so many years, it would not be fair to remand the matter. He further submits that in case after remand the amount is enhanced, the insurance company would necessarily burden with the interest upon it.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record.

¶28

The appellant was examined himself and he has suffered multiple injuries and his left eye was treated in various hospitals including Shanker Netralay, Chennai. Though it appears that he has sustained some injuries on right eye and his vision loss to left eye however, this could only be ascertained by examining the expert eye doctor. The record also indicates that the appellant had undergone treatment in various places. The Court and Tribunal is to see that just compensation has been awarded, in view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that one opportunity may be granted to the appellant / claimant to call for further witnesses in support of his claim. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed and the matter

¶29

¶30

is remanded back to the learned Tribunal to decide afresh after giving proper opportunity to the parties; to lead further evidence; filed documents. In the event if the Tribunal enhancing the amount of compensation, while granting interest, it would consider that the delay is not caused by the insurance company and thereafter may grant adequate interest if so required. The parties shall appear before the learned Tribunal on 22.03.2024. The learned Tribunal would make all endeavors to decide the case within six months from first date of appearance of the parties. The awarded amount which has been deposited by the insurance company shall not be recoverable from the appellant / claimant.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶33

PAWAN

Santlal Gupta v. Nehru Lal Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santlal Gupta v. Nehru Lal Yadav

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

Jitendra Pandey Vs Rajkumar Singh

Smt. Lata Devi Vs Karamjeet Singh

Sarita Patel Vs Jugal Kishore Agrawal

Moharmati Vs Ramkumar Khalkho

Smt. Lalita Verma Vs Karnail Singh

Smt. Savitri Kamar Vs Suresh Bagh