Partly allowed

Sunil Kumar Sao v. Jitendra Kumar Sao

Chhattisgarh HC1 Feb 2024MAC/1728/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor accident claim appeal seeking enhancement of tribunal award for permanent disability. Court added 40% future prospects to assessed income of Rs. 14,834/-, applied multiplier 15 for 6% disability, enhanced non-pecuniary heads to Rs. 50,000/- extra, granting total enhancement of Rs. 1,14,080/- with 6% interest.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sunil Kumar Sao Vs Jitendra Kumar Sao — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MAC No. 1728 of 2018

¶4

Sunil Kumar Sao S/o Sukhdeo Sao Aged About 39 Years R/o Bhilai Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶5

---- Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Jitendra Kumar Sao S/o Mahendra Kumar Sao Aged About 30 Years R/o Ring Road No. 02, Sukhram Nagar , Mohgaon, Raipur, P. S. Gudiyari, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

Chandrika Sahu S/o Arjun Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Rameshwar Nagar, Purana Cabin, Bhanpuri, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

The United India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Office, G. E. Road Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For the Appellant : Syed Majid Ali, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Swati Agrawal on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate __________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board

¶12

02.02.2024

¶13

1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short

¶14

“ the M.V Act”) has been filed by the appellant/claimant, being aggrieved by an award dated 29.06.2018 passed by the learned 7^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, (C.G.) in claim case No. 250/2015.

¶15

1. The appellant/claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the M.V Act on account of the injury sustained by him in a accident that took place on 03.11.2014 by rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle (Vista Car) bearing registration No. C.G. 104-HD-2641, driven by driver respondent No. 1/Jitendra Kumar, owned by owner respondent No.2/Chandrika Sahu and insured with the insurance company respondent No.3/The United Insurance Com. Ltd. The appellant/claimant pleaded in his claim application that as a result of the accident, the appellant/claimant suffered grievous injuries in the chest, forehead, head, four teeth were broken, nose was also injured

¶16

¶17

and also sustained fracture on the left leg. The appellant/claimant was taken to the Government Hospital Dongargarh for his treatment, where considering the seriousness of the injury, the appellant/claimant was admitted to JLN Hospital, Sector -09 for treatment. Due to the said accident, the appellant/claimant has suffered permanent disability and total compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- was claimed and the learned tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 02,44,470/- to the appellant/claimant. It was further pleaded that at the time of accident the appellant/claimant was aged about 39 years and involved in business of transporting, building material supplier, grocery and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month.

¶18

1. The claim application was resisted by the respondents on various grounds and the Respondent no. 3/insurance company filed its written statement and denied the averments of the claim application and pleaded that there is violation of terms and condition of the insurance policy, therefore, the insurance company may be exonerated from payment of compensation.

¶19

1. Learned Tribunal framed issues and decided the same in favour of the appellant/claimant and awarded above stated compensation.

¶20

1. Mr. Syed Majid Ali, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant argued that though the income of the appellant/claimant is correctly assessed and suitable compensation on account of loss of earning capacity has been awarded but no future prospect is added in his income and on other admissible heads like pain suffering, nutritional diet, transportation, and attendant may also be suitably enhanced.

¶21

1. Ms. Swati Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent. No.3 supports the award and submits that learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation has been awarded.

¶22

¶23

1. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions and also perused the record.

¶24

So far as, the income assessed and it is found to Rs. 14,834/- and permanent disability (ex-P-41) was found 6% and is also assessed by the learned Tribunal and awarded for loss of future earning to Rs. 1,60,200/-. However, learned Tribunal has not added any future prospect since the appellant was aged about 39 years, 40% future prospect is added in his monthly income which comes to Rs. 5,933/and after adding to it comes to Rs. 20,767/-, loss of disability 6% would come to Rs. 1,246/- and yearly loss would comes to Rs. 14,952/- (1246X12). Since, the appellant was aged about 39 years, the multiplier of 15 is applied, the loss of future earning comes to Rs. 2,24,280/-. The amount awarded on other heads, like pain & suffering, nutritional diet, transportation and attendant is enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- in addition to amount already awarded. Rs. 62,270/- for medical bills is maintained. Hence, the enhanced amount of compensation comes to Rs. 3,58,550/- after deducting the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal of Rs. 2,44,470/-, total enhanced amount of compensation comes to the tune of Rs. 01,14,080/Therefore the appellant shall be entitled to receive the compensation of Rs. 01,14,080/- with @6% from the date of filing this appeal. Respondent No.3/Insurance company shall deposit the same amount within 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶25

Thus, appeal is partly allowed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶28

H.Ansari

Sunil Kumar Sao v. Jitendra Kumar Sao

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sunil Kumar Sao v. Jitendra Kumar Sao

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Luxmi Devi Tamrkar Vs Mulchand

Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Milesh Alias Santosh Kumar Dhruv

Smt. Sukmati Baghel Vs Kriparam Netam

Naval Singh @ Naval Kishore Komara Vs Laxminath Dhruv

Smt. Karfulo Mahanand Vs Pradeep Bharati

Jaggu @ Jageshwar Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh