Suresh Kumar Sahu Vs Ramsakha

¶1

1

¶2

Order Reserved on 02.02.2024

¶3

Order Pronounced on 16.02.2024

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MAC No. 1898 of 2018

¶6

1 - Suresh Kumar Sahu S/o Ramlal Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Gali No. 3, Jai Hind Chowk, Ramnagar, Raipur, P.S. Gudiyari, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶7

---- Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

1 - Ramsakha S/o Lalai Panka Through Neraj Kumar, S/o Naresh Kumar Agrawal, Sainath Traders In Front Of Kota Stadium, Raipur, P.S. - Sraswati Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G. - 04 Zd-6658)

¶10

2 - Neeraj Kumar S/fo Naresh Kumar Agrawal Sainath Traders In Front Of Kota Stadium, Raipur, P.S. Sraswati Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle No. - C.G. 04 Zd – 6658)

¶11

3 - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager (Mandal No.1), United India Insurance Co. Ltd Kachahari Chwok, Jail Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle No. - C.G. - 04 Zd-6658) ---- Respondents

¶12

Mr. Satyendra Srivas on behalf of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. B. N. Nande, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

¶13

CAV Order

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶15

This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) challenging the award dated 01.10.2018 passed in Claim Case No. 272/2016 by the 5^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur, CG. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs. 28,35,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 10,88,004/- in favour of the appellant / claimant on account of injuries sustained by him in an accident that

¶16

2

¶17

took place on 10.01.2016 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Hyva) bearing registration No. CG 04 ZD 6658 by the respondent No. 1 / driver, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3 / insurance company.

¶18

As per the pleadings of the claim application, at the time of accident, the appellant / claimant was aged about 35 years and he was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month as a mason. As a result of the accident, he became permanent disabled and spent huge amount on his treatment and that further treatment would also be required in future.

¶19

The claim application was resisted by the respondents on various grounds. The insurance company taken a plea that there was violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

¶20

Learned Tribunal framed issues on the basis of the pleadings made by the respective parties and decided the same in favour of the appellant / claimant and awarded the above stated compensation.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellant / claimant vehemently argued that the income of the appellant / claimant taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Likewise, the compensation awarded on other admissible heads is also stated to be on the lower side, therefore, the award may suitably be modified.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 supports the award and submits that the compensation awarded including the one on conventional heads is just and reasonable, and does not require any interference by this Court.

¶23

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

¶24

3

¶25

As regards the functional disability, the disability certificate (Ex. P- 33) has been issued by the District Medical Board, District Hospital Raipur, CG in which disability was found to be 60%. Appellant / claimant (AW-1) has deposed in his evidence that he was a Mason and was earning Rs. 400/- per day. Dr. P.K. Gupta (AW-2) was examined he has proved disability certificate (Ex. P-33) to the tune of 60%. He has stated that he cannot say regarding the percentage of reduction of working capacity of the appellant / claimant. Dr. Kedaar Agrawal (AW-3) was examined and he has stated that the appellant / claimant sustained severe injuries below the knee of the right leg and he has performed surgery upon it and his right leg was amputated below the knee. In cross-examination he has stated that as a result of amputation, the appellant working capacity may be reduced from 50 to 60 %. The learned Tribunal found the permanent disability, loss of earning capacity to the tune of 60%. His monthly income was found to be Rs.5,000/- per month and after assessing the same and applying multiplier of 16, the compensation was awarded in the following manner:-

¶26

For loss of earning capacity Rs. 5,76,000/-; for medical treatment Rs. 4,17,003.94/-; for future treatment Rs. 25,000/-; for pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/-; for transportation and special diet Rs. 10,000/-; for attendant Rs. 10,000/- and total awarded of Rs. 10,88,004/-.

¶27

Considering the evidence available on record, date of accident; nature of job; this Court assessed the monthly income of the injured to Rs. 6,000/-. Keeping all this in mind, this Court proceeds to compute the compensation awardable in favour of the claimant in the following manner:-

¶28

S. No.	Description	Amount
1.	Monthly income	6000/-
2.	40% Future prospect	2400/-
3.	Total Monthly Income (6000+2400)	8400/-
4.	Total Yearly Income (8400x12)	1,00,800/-

¶29

4

¶30

5.	Functional disability 60% yearly loss	Rs. 60,480/-
6.	Multiplier of 16 applied to assess total loss of dependency	Rs. 9,67,680/-
8.	Medical Treatment	Rs. 4,17,004/-
9.	Future Treatment	Rs. 50,000/-
10	Pain and Suffering	Rs. 50,000/-
11.	Transportation & Special diet	Rs. 20,000/-
12.	For attendant	Rs. 10,000/-
13.	Loss of earning capacity during the treatment(three months)	Rs. 18,000/-
14.	For enjoyment of life	Rs. 1,00,000/-
	Total	Rs. 16,32,684/-

¶31

Since learned Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs. 10,88,004/-, the enhanced amount which he now is entitled to get comes to Rs. 5,44,680/-. Order accordingly.

¶32

The amount of compensation shall be paid by the insurance company / respondent No. 3 within a period of 60 days with 6% interest, from the date of application.

¶33

On such deposit being made, out of the amount worked out by way of enhancement, let 95% thereof be invested in some nationalized bank for a period of three years and the remainder be paid to him through bank transaction.

¶34

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶37

PAWAN

Suresh Kumar Sahu v. Ramsakha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar Sahu v. Ramsakha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohni Bai Vs C. Murgan

Dhanesh Mahla Vs C. Murgan

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Banjami Linga

Umesh Bhardwaj Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chheduram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Indira Bai Netam Vs Doctor Gaurav Ahluwaliya