Partly allowed

Harish Kumar Rajput v. Vijay Kumar Gendle

Chhattisgarh HC3 Mar 2024MAC/265/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against MACT award of Rs. 2,83,667/- to an injured mini-bus passenger. The High Court considered disability at 15%, revised monthly income to Rs. 6,188/- with 40% future prospects per Sidram, applied multiplier 18, and enhanced total compensation to Rs. 6,09,251/-.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 2,83,667/- to Rs. 6,09,251/-; additional Rs. 3,25,584/- with 6% interest from date of claim application, to be deposited by insurer within 60 days.

Harish Kumar Rajput Vs Vijay Kumar Gendle — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 265 of 2020

¶5

Harish Kumar Rajput S/o Arun Kumar Rajput Aged About 24 Years Resident of Village Chandargarhi, Gram Panchyat Kapua, Pathriya, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh At Present - Holike Chowk Takhatpur, Police Station - Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Vijay Kumar Gendle S/o Mannu Gendle Aged About 37 Years Resident Of Village Goindra Police Station - Pathriya, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh, ( Driver Of The Vehicle Mini Bus No. C.G. 10 G. 0382)

¶9

Shahid Khan S/o Gulab Khan Resident Of Village - Pathriya, Police Station - Pathriya, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh, ( Owner Of The Vehicle Mini Bus No. C.G. 10 G. 0382)

¶10

3. Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited Through - Divisional Manager, Division Office - Chhattisgarh Plaza, Near By Agrasen Chowk, Telephone Exchange Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Vehicle) ---- Respondents

¶11

For Appellant : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Utsav Mahishwar, Advocate

¶12

________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma,

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

04.03.2024

¶15

Challenge in this appeal is to an award dated 20.09.2019 passed in Claim Case No. 181/2018 by the learned 5^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bilaspur (CG). By the impugned award, the learned tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,83,667/- as compensation to the appellant/claimant on account of injury sustained by him in an accident that took place on 31.01.2017.

¶16

Brief facts of the case is that on 31.01.2017 at around 10 am, the claimant- Harish Kumar Rajpur was traveling from village

¶17

¶18

Chandargarhi to village Pathriya in a mini bus bearing registration No. C.G. 10 G 0382. When the tire of the bus got punctured, the passengers were asked to stop the bus but the driver -respondent No. 1 did not stop the bus and drove fast and recklessly and overturned. Due to which the passengers traveling in the bus including the appellant -Harish Kumar Rajput were injured. The entire muscles of both the legs of the appellant were exposed and mutilated. The main bone of the left leg was broken into several pieces and there were internal injuries in other parts of the body. The applicant was sent to the Community Health Center after the incident.

¶19

As per the pleadings of the claim application, on account of the accident the appellant/claimant suffered serious injuries and prior to the accident, he was running a shop and was earning Rs. 15,000/per month and aged about 24 years, the appellant/claimant claimed Rs. 42,00,000/- as total compensation arising out of the accident.

¶20

The claim application was resisted by respondent No.1 and 2 driver and owner of the offending vehicle and denied the averments in the claim application and pleaded that the amount claimed was exaggerated, the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent No.3/insurance Company and if the liability to pay compensation arises it would be upon the Insurance Company.

¶21

Learned Tribunal on the basis of above pleadings framed issues which were decided in favour of the appellants/claimants. None of the issues are challenged by the respondents.

¶22

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the learned Tribunal should not have denied 40% of permanent disability to the appellant as there is sufficient evidence to this extent and according to the statement of Dr. Arvind Kumar Sahu (PW-3) who has made certificate of disability (Ex.P-167) after examining the injured, the diagnosis of 40% disability received by the appellant is impossible to recover and right leg of the appellant is suffering from a disease called Lymph Indema (Grade- 3) which has occurred due to injuries and there will be swelling in his legs due to the said disease and the appellant will have difficulty in doing his work normally like a normal person. He further submits that the learned tribunal should not have denied the income of the deceased and future treatment expenses. The learned tribunal should have also granted a lump-sum on the head of loss of income as the appellant would not have been able to work for six month continuous. Apart from this, the compensation awarded on the other heads is also on the lower side. He further submits that the future prospect should also be awarded in the light of Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sidram Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and Anr. , reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439 whereby it has awarded future prospect in injury case, therefore, this claim petition is also entitled for suitable enhancement.

¶24

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3/ insurance company submits that 40% of the permanent disability of the appellant should not be considered, as the disability certificate (ExP167) was prepared based on the medical report, old x-ray and

¶25

¶26

examination of injuries suffered by the injured after two years of alleged incident and without taking any X-ray of the appellant, which was valid for only five years and which was also not issued by the Medical Board and at present the appellant can walk. He further submits that the learned tribunal has rightly assessed the income of deceased and submits that looking to the evidence on record, the compensation has rightly been awarded and does not require any interference by this Court.

¶27

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

¶28

Learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation as under:

¶29

Sl. No.	Heads	Calculation
1.	For loss of income during treatment	Rs. 10,000/-
2.	For Medical Bill	Rs. 2,33,667/-
3.	For Special diet, pain & suffer and attendant	Rs. 40,000/-
4.	Total compensation	Rs. 02,83,667/-

¶30

10.The Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation for medical bill amounting to Rs. 02,33,667/- which, being just and proper is hereby maintained.

¶31

11.As regards the submission made by the learned counsel for appellant that 40% of permanent disability suffered by the injured is not considered by the learned Tribunal, according to the statement of Dr. Arvind Kumar Sahu (PW-3) who has made certificate of disability

¶32

¶33

(Ex.P-167) after examining the injured, the diagnosis of 40% disability received by the appellant is impossible to recover and right leg of the appellant is suffering from a disease called Lymph Indema (Grade- 3) which has occurred due to injuries and there will be swelling in his legs due to the said disease and the appellant will have difficulty in doing his work normally like a normal person, therefore this Court is of the opinion that due to the injuries suffered by the appellant, he could not do his work as he was doing prior to the alleged incident, it would be appropriate to consider disability of injured to the extent of 15%.

¶34

12.As regards the income of the injured, the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant/claimant to Rs. 5,000/- per month, in the opinion of this Court, which needs to be modified as prescribed in minimum wages rate to Rs. 6,188/- at the time of accident i.e. on 31.01.2017.

¶35

13.Further, the learned tribunal also assessed other heads i.e. Rs. 10,000/- for loss of income and Rs. 40,000/- for diet, pain & suffer and attendant, in the opinion of this Court, which need to be enhanced as well as in other heads. The learned Tribunal has not considered the future prospect of the injured which in the considered opinion of this Court should be 40% in the light of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sidram Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and Anr. , reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439 . The Tribunal has erred by not applying the multiplier of 18 to the income of the injured.

¶36

¶37

14.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, material available on record and in the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sidram Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and Anr. , reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439 this Court is recomputing the compensation as

¶38

below:-

¶39

S.N.	Particular	Awarded by this Court
1.	Monthly Income	6188/-
2.	Future prospects @ 40%	2475/-
3.	Total Monthly Income	8663/-
4.	Loss of functional disability to the extent of 15%	8663 x 15% = 1299/-
5.	Total yearly loss of Income	1299x12=15,588/-
6.	Multiplier of 18 applied to assess total	2,80,584/-
7.	For Medical Bill	2,33,667/-
8.	For Special diet	15,000/-
9.	For Attendant	15,000/-
10.	For Transportation	15,000/-
11.	For Pain and Agony	25,000/-
12.	For future medical expenses	25,000/-
13.	Total compensation	Rs. 609,251/-

¶40

15.For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 2,83,667/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 6,09251/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 2,83,667/-, the claimant is held entitled to get for an additional amount of Rs. 3,25,584/-, the additional amount shall carry interest @6% per annum from the date of claim application. The insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation within 60 days.

¶41

¶42

16.The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. On deposit tribunal shall pass appropriate order with regard to apportionment, investment and disbursement of the enhance amount of compensation and rest of the conditions as ordered by the learned Tribunal shall remain intact.

¶43

17.Appeal is thus partly allowed.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶46

Jyoti

Harish Kumar Rajput v. Vijay Kumar Gendle

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish Kumar Rajput v. Vijay Kumar Gendle

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manisha Chandravanshi Vs Cholamandalam M/s General Insurance Company Limited

Manrakhan Sahu Vs Gopalram Dhruw

Ghasiram Suryawanshi Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Smt. Parwati Vs Mahendra Markandey

Jageshwar Goswami @ Baba Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rahul Singh Vs Sandeep Kumar Nishad