Jitendra Pandey Vs Rajkumar Singh

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

M.A.(C) No. 221 of 2018

Jitendra Pandey, S/o Ramvilas, aged about 32 Years, R/o Village and Police Station Rajouli, District Navda Bihar Present Address Ratakhar, Korba, Tahsil And DistrictKorba, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant)

¶5

--- Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rajkumar Singh, S/o Nandkumar Singh, aged about 38 Years, R/o Police Line Ambikapur, Sarguja, Chhattisgarh

¶8

The New India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Ambikapur, Through Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶9

--- Respondents

¶10

______________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Shri Pritam Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

12/02/2024

¶14

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) by the appellant/claimant against the award dated 27/09/2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba, District – Korba (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 84/2014.

¶15

2. The appellant / claimant filed an application under section 163(A) of the MV Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.19,40,000/- against the respondent on account of permanent disability of Jitendra Pandey in an accident that took place on 05/05/2007 on account of injuries and disability sustained by the appellant.

¶16

3. As per the pleadings of the claim application, on the date of accident i.e. 05/05/2007, the offending vehicle was driven by the appellant and he was coming to Balco, Korba with the helper Ashok after loading the Bauxite from

¶17

-2-

¶18

Mainpat Mines suddenly the steering of the offending vehicle was jammed and offending vehicle became uncontrolled and dashed to the nearby mango tree. As a result the appellant sustained severe injuries including amputation of his right leg below Knee.

¶19

4. The claim application was resisted by the respondent on various grounds. The respondent No. 2 / Insurance Company took a plea that there is a violation of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy, therefore the insurance company may be exonerated.

¶20

5. The learned Tribunal found the monthly income of the appellant to Rs.2500/per month and held that he has sustained 100% disability and awarded compensation in the following manner:-.

¶21

S.No.	Head	Calculation
1.	For Earning Capacity	Rs.5,10,000/-
2.	For Medical Expenses	Rs.1,25,000/-
3.	For Mental & Physical Agony	Rs.50,000/-
4.	For Attendant & Nutritional diet	Rs.25,000/-
	Total compensation	Rs.7,10,000/- with 6% interest

¶22

6. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that though the income of the appellant was plead as Rs.2500/- per month but this Court can award more compensation which has been claimed and the income of the appellant may be taken to Rs.40,000/- yearly.

¶23

7. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 /Insurance Company supports the award and submits that the appellant / claimant could not brought any document on record to prove the income of the appellant / claimant, therefore just compensation has been awarded which does not require any interference.

¶24

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

¶25

-3-

¶26

9. Considering the entire evidence, nature of job and in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court Nagappa vs Gurudayal Singh & Ors, reported in AIR 2003 SCC 674, the Tribunal has to look into the fact that just compensation has been awarded and it can grant just compensation more then which have been claimed, this court holds Yearly income of the appellant to Rs.40,000/-. Since the Tribunal has found to be 100% disablement for loss of earning, after applying the multiplier of 17, loss of future income would come to Rs.6,80,000/- rest of the amount for medical treatment Rs.1,25,000/appellant, pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- and other heads Rs.25,000/- is hereby maintained. Total compensation would come to Rs.8,80,000/-

¶27

10. After deducting Rs.7,10,000/- as awarded by learned Tribunal, the appellant / claimant held entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- with 6% interest from the date of claim application till realization to be paid by respondent No. 2 / Insurance Company within 60 days from today.

¶28

11. Rs.1,50,000/-(one lakh and fifty thousand) shall be invested in the name of appellant as fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank for a period of 3 years. Remaining amount shall be paid to appellant by bank transaction / account payee cheque.

¶29

12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the award impugned to the above extent.

¶30

vvvvvvvvvvvvvv Sd/-/-

¶31

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶32

Ashish

Jitendra Pandey v. Rajkumar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Pandey v. Rajkumar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Puniram Patle Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukesh Khunte Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ganga Yadav Vs Punaram Yadav

Smt. Lata Devi Vs Karamjeet Singh

Sarita Patel Vs Jugal Kishore Agrawal

Vikash Tiwari Vs Nirmal Kumar Jain