Partly allowed

Dilip Hotwani v. Saurabh Bakshi

Chhattisgarh HC24 Jun 2024MAC/258/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh enhanced motor accident compensation awarded to the appellant by revising his monthly income from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 6,500 and recalculating disability damages. The Court confirmed the Tribunal's 35% functional disability but increased total compensation from Rs. 3,69,148 to Rs. 4,68,578.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 3,69,148 to Rs. 4,68,578; additional amount to carry interest at 6% per annum from 28.01.2019.

Dilip Hotwani Vs Saurabh Bakshi — Insurance | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 258 of 2019

¶5

Dilip Hotwani S/o Late Shri Narumal Hotwani Aged About 52 Years R/o Street No. 06, Telibandha, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Saurabh Bakshi S/o Alok Kumar Bakshi Aged About 31 Years R/o H- 22, Near T.V Tower, Anupam Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Ashwin Bakshi S/o Shri Prakesh Kumar Bakshi Aged About 34 Years R/o H-22, Near T.V Tower, Anupam Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And DistrictRaipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

The United India Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Amar Complex Jeevan Bima Marg, Near Pandri Railway Crossing Pandri, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

For the Appellant : Mr. Shashwat Mishra on behalf of Mr. Manoj Pranjpe, Advocate

¶13

For Respondent No.3. : Mr. Akash Shrivastava on behalf of Mr. R. N. Pusty, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board

¶15

25.06.2024

¶16

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) has been filed by the appellant/claimant, being aggrieved by the award dated 13.12.2018 passed by the 2^nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 210/2017.

¶17

1. By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 03,69,148/- to the appellant/claimant, on account of the injuries sustained by appellant/Dilip Hotwani in an accident that took place on 21.04.2016 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Hyundai Car) bearing Registration No. CG-04-HC-

¶18

¶19

3008, driven by driver/respondent No.1- Saurabh Bakshi, Owned by respondent No. 2/Ashwin Bakshi and insured with the respondent No. 3/The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. As a result of the said accident, the appellant/Dilip Hotwani sustained severe injuries including in his right and left leg due to which, the appellant/Dilip Hotwani spent huge amount on his treatemnt and had gone through operation of his right leg at Farishta Hospital, Raipur.

¶20

1. As per the pleadings, the appellant/Dilip Hotwani was aged about 52 years and was working as an Executive at M/s G.K Developers, Ashok Millennium Office and was earning Rs. 20,000/- per months. The appellants/claimants was also earning commission by selling the flats and plots of the firm.

¶21

1. Respondent No. 1 & 2/Driver and owner filed their written statement and denied all the allegations and have categorically stated that the appellant himself was driving negligently due to which he has sustained the injuries. Respondent No.3/Insurance company of the offending vehicle in the reply has denied all the allegations leveled against it and has further stated respondent No. 1 & 2/Driver and Owner had not furnished to the insurance company with the information regarding the accident. Therefore, they are not liable to pay the compensation.

¶22

1. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed 5 issues and after appreciating the material available on record decided the same in favour of the appellant/claimant and awarded above stated compensation.

¶23

¶24

1. Mr. Shashwat Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the amount of compensation is also on the lower side. Hence, suitable enhancement may be made by this Court.

¶25

1. Mr. Akash Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. supports the award and submits that in view of evidence available on record and findings of the learned Tribunal is justified and just compensation has been awarded.

¶26

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

¶27

1. The learned Tribunal after meticulous examination found the functional disability to 35% which appears to be based upon proper appreciation and is hereby maintained. The learned Tribunal found the monthly income of the appellant/claimant to Rs. 5,000/- but it appears to be on the lower side. Considering the evidence available on record; this Court is of the view that Rs. 6,500/- can be safely taken as income of the appellant/claimant and thereafter recomputing the compensation as below:-

¶28

S.N	Particular	Awarded by this Court
1.	Monthly Income of the appellant	6,500/-
2.	Future Prospects @ 10%	650/-
3.	Total Income	7150/-
4.	Total Yearly Income	7150X12= 85,800/-
5.	Functional disability of 35%	85,800/35%= 30,030/-
6.	Multiplier of 11 applied to	30,030X11= 3,30,330/-
	assess yearly loss of
	dependency
7.	Pain & suffering, special diet, transportation and attendant	50,000/-

¶29

¶30

8.	Medical expenses	90,048/-(as awarded by Tribunal)
9.	Loss of earning during treatment	6,500/-
10.	Future treatment	10,000/-
	Total compensation	04,86,578/-

¶31

For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of

¶32

compensation of Rs. 3,69,148/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 04,68,578/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 3,69,148/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 1,17,430/-. The additional amount shall carry interest @6% per anuum from the date of appeal i.e. 28.01.2019. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent.

¶33

1. The insurance company is directed to deposit the same amount of compensation enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days. On such deposit being made, 75% amount shall be invested in the name of appellant/claimant for a period of 2 years in FDR at any Nationalized Bank, rest of the amount shall be paid to appellant / claimant through bank transaction / account payee cheque.

¶34

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶37

Judge

¶38

H.Ansari

Dilip Hotwani v. Saurabh Bakshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Hotwani v. Saurabh Bakshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Chandravanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Naresh Kannoje Vs Smt. Punabai @ Puniya

Amit Anand Jha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kartikram and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanesh Dehari Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

South Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs Ashok Kumar