Vijay Bahadur Singh Vs Satya Prakash Sahu

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 248 of 2018

¶5

Vijay Bahadur Singh S/o Late Shivram Singh Aged About 55 Years Revenue Inspector, Diversion Office Collector, Korea, R/o Chhindand, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh............... Claimant

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Satya Prakash Sahu S/o Nandlal Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Sakariya, Police Station Khadgawa, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. (Owner- Cum- Driver Of Vehicle Bearing No. C G 16 C B 0508

¶9

Branch Manager Through A I G General Insurance Company Limited, D P C T Corporate Park, 4th Floor, Shop No. 403, Plot No. 1, Block No. 9, Rajbandha Maindan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Owner Of Vehicle Bearing No. C G 16 C B 0508

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

For Appellant	: Shri Anil Gulati, Advocate
For Respondent No.1	: Ms. Sangeeta Kaushik, Advocate
For Respondent No.2	: Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶13

Order On Board

¶14

08/02/2024

¶15

Challenging the award dated 01/11/2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, District – Koriya, CG in Motor Accident Claim Case No.46/2015, the appellant / claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’).

¶16

By the impugned award against claim of Rs.26,02,000/-, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,17,916/- in favour of the appellant / claimant on account of injuries sustained by him in an accident that occurred on 22/04/2014 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Indica Car) bearing registration No.CG–16-CB-0508 driven and owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2 / insurance company.

¶17

As per pleadings of the claim application, on account of the said accident, the

¶18

2

¶19

appellant sustained severe injuries including brain hemorrhage. He was treated in Ramkrishna Care hospital, Raipur and spent huge money for treatment. Further pleadings are that he was earning Rs.35,000/- per month and after the accident, he could not continue his job for almost 1 year. Therefore, the abovestated compensation was claimed. The respondent No.1 resisted the claim application on various grounds and respondent No.3/insurance company took a plea that there is violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

¶20

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed issues and decided the same in favour of the appellant / claimant and against the respondents.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellant / claimant submits that the amount of compensation is meager, therefore, suitable enhancement may be made.

¶22

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 supports the award and submits that in a given facts and circumstances available on record, just compensation has been awarded and there is no need to interfere with the award.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission and perused the records.

¶24

Though bills of Rs.7,96,883 were filed by the appellant / claimant but the same was reimbursed to the appellant / claimant by the employer which has not been disputed by the appellant. Thereafter, learned Tribunal after assessing the material available on record, awarded compensation in the following manner -

¶25

Attendant	Rs.10,000/-
Transportation	Rs.7916/-
Pain and suffering	RS.30,000/-
Nutritional diet	Rs.10,000/-
Future loss of earning	Rs.60,000/-
On other heads	Rs.10,000/-

3

Total

117916/-

After perusal of record and considering the submission made at the bar and considering the fact that the appellant / claimant remained admitted in the hospital for a considerable period of time and also considering the injuries sustained by him, ends of justice would be served if further sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded. Accordingly Rs.50,000/- is awarded in favour of the appellant / claimant in addition to the amount already awarded.

¶30

The appeal is accordingly partly allowed.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge

¶33

Deepti

Vijay Bahadur Singh v. Satya Prakash Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Bahadur Singh v. Satya Prakash Sahu

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

Dinesh Kumar Vaishnav Vs Shatruhan Khairwar

Prahalad Sahu Vs Sudhir Sultaniya

Smt. Radhika Devi Vs Jaisingh

Phanendra Kumar Sahu Vs Neeraj Pathak

Smt Pinki Chowdhary Vs Mishra Rana Singh

Balaram Rana Vs Sharafat Hussain