Partly allowed

Naval Singh @ Naval Kishore Komara v. Laxminath Dhruv

Chhattisgarh HC1 Feb 2024MAC/1841/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant injured in a truck-motorcycle accident challenged the MACT award granting only Rs.35,000 against a Rs.27 lakh claim. Medical expenses stood reimbursed by the Government and no permanent disability was shown. The High Court enhanced compensation by Rs.15,000 with 6% interest and partly allowed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by Rs.15,000 with 6% interest per annum from date of claim application till realization, payable by insurer within 60 days; appeal partly allowed with modification of award.

Naval Singh @ Naval Kishore Komara Vs Laxminath… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

M.A.(C) No. 1841 of 2018

¶4

Naval Singh @ Naval Kishore Komara S/o Late Shri Soman Singh Komara, aged about 60 Years, R/o. Village Kantagaon, P.S. Korar, Tahsil Charama, District Kanker Chhattisgarh

¶5

--- Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Laxminath Dhruv, S/o Kacharu Dhruv, aged about 37 Years, R/o. Station Para Dugali, Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Driver)

¶8

Dinesh Golchha, S/o Gulab Chand Golchha, R/o. Near Dena Bank, Main Road Nagari, Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Owner),

¶9

The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Madina Building, Kachhari Chowk, Jail Road Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer)

¶10

--- Respondents

¶11

____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Shri Praveern K. Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Shri Deepak Gupta, Advocate

¶12

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

02/02/2024

¶16

Challenge in this appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) by the appellant/claimant is against the award dated 07/04/2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, District – Dhamtari(C.G.) in Claim Case No. - 25 / 2017.

¶17

By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs.27,00,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.35,000/- partly allowing an application under section 166 of MV Act filed by the appellant / claimant on

¶18

-2-

¶19

account of injuries sustained by him in an accident that took place on 28/02/2013 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle truck bearing registration No. CG04/JDC-2471 by respondent No. 1 / driver. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2 / Owner and insured with the respondent No. 3 / Insurance company.

¶20

As per pleadings of the claim application, on 28/02/2016 appellant had come to Bus Stand, Nagri from Camp Sihawa to pick up Narad Ram Deshmukh. When they were returning to Sihawa by motorcycle with moderate speed on his own side (left), as they reached near Devpuri Rice mill, at that time driver of the offending vehicle dashed the motorcycle of the appellant. As a result appellant sustained injury on right shoulder, right and left hand wrist, lower side of Knee was fractured and also sustained injuries on various part of the body. The appellant / claimant was treated in the Government Hospital and thereafter referred to Ramkrisha Hospital, Raipur where he was admitted from 28/02/2013 to 15/03/2013 and spent huge amount on medical treatment. He was continued in routine check up for his disablement. The appellant was aged 60 years and was Head Constable in CAF Camp Sihawaha and earning Rs.25,000/- per month.

¶21

The application was resisted by respondents on various ground including Insurance Company taking a plea that that there is a violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.

¶22

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

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant / claimant submits that the compensation on awarded is meager one. However, he fairly submits that the amount spent on treatment has already reimbursed by the Government and he was

¶24

-3-

¶25

a government servant and now he has retired. Compensation on all other admissible head may be enhanced suitably.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 supports the award and submits that no permanent disability was caused even no treating doctor or any other doctor were examined and compensation has been awarded is just and equitable.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission and also perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶28

The amount spent on treatment has already been reimbursed from the Government and as such there is no permanent disability and therefore, the Tribunal had awarded .Total compensation of Rs35,000/- under the heads of transportation, attendant, nutritional diet etc..

¶29

Considering the entire fact and circumstance, particularly injuries sustained, evidence available on record ends of justice would be me if a further amount of Rs.15,000/- is awarded to make the compensation just with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim application till realization. The amount shall be deposited by the Insurance Company within a period of 60 days from the date of copy of receipt of order.

¶30

Appeal thus partly allowed with modification in the award impugned to the above extent.

¶31

.Ashish

Naval Singh @ Naval Kishore Komara v. Laxminath Dhruv

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naval Singh @ Naval Kishore Komara v. Laxminath Dhruv

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

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

Sunil Kumar Sao Vs Jitendra Kumar Sao

Smt. Karfulo Mahanand Vs Pradeep Bharati

Jaggu @ Jageshwar Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh