Partly allowed

Lakshminarayan Sahu v. Manish Kumar Yadav

Chhattisgarh HC12 Mar 2024MAC/320/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed in part; enhanced motor accident compensation from Rs. 1,28,790 to Rs. 2,03,790 by adding future medical, attendant, and transportation charges based on trial court evidence.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation to Rs. 2,03,790; insurance company directed to deposit additional Rs. 75,000 within 60 days with 6% interest.

Lakshminarayan Sahu Vs Manish Kumar… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 320 of 2020

¶5

Lakshminarayan Sahu S/o Late Shivdayal Sahu Aged About 32 Years Occupation- Driver Of Mini Bus, Resident Of Village- Devada, TahsilPatan, District- Durg Chhattisgarh (Applicant/claimant), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Manish Kumar Yadav S/o Vishnuram Yadav Aged About 24 Years Resident Of- Durgapara, Santoshi Nagar, Police Station- Tikrapara, Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No. 1) (Driver And Registered Owner Of Vehicle Car Bearing Registration No. C.G.-04-Hb4858), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No. 3, R.K. Plaza, Pachpedi Naka, Ring Road No. 1, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No. 2) (Insurer Of Vehicle Car Bearing Registration No. C.G.-04-Hb-4858), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents

¶10

For Appellant : Ms. Rekha Shrivastava, on behalf of Mr. Shivendu Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. N. K. Malaviya, Advocate

¶11

____________________________________________________

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma,

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

13.03.2024

¶15

Challenge in this appeal is to an award dated 15.10.2019 passed in Claim Case No. 610/2018 by the learned 5^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). By the impugned award, the learned tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,28,790/- as compensation to the appellant/claimant on account of injury sustained by him in an accident that took place on 02.04.2017.

¶16

¶17

Brief facts of the case is that on 02.04.2017 at around 6 pm, the appellant- Lakshminarayan Sahu was going towards to his house at Village- Devada by his own motorcycle, when he reached near the Tiranga Chowk, Village Amleshwar, Police Station Amleshwar, Patan, District Durg (C.G.), then from the opposite site, the respondent No. 1 was driving the car bearing registration No. C.G.-04-HB4858, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the appellant’s motorcycle. In result of accident, the appellant sustained grievous injuries. His left leg was got fractured and he sustained injuries in his chest, stomach, head, both hands and other parts of the body. At the time of accident, the respondent No.1 was driver and registered owner of the offending vehicle and it was duly insured with the respondent No. 2/Insurance Company.

¶18

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 a driver of a mini bus and was earning Rs. 500/- per day and aged about 32 years, the appellant/claimant claimed Rs. 34,60,000/- as total compensation arising out of the accident.

¶19

The claim application was resisted by respondent No.1 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.2/Insurance Company and if the liability to pay compensation arises it would be upon the Insurance Company. The claim application was resisted by

¶20

¶21

insurance company/respondent No.3 on various grounds including a plea that the driver of the offending vehicle did not hold any valid and effective driving license and the offending vehicle was driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. It was further pleaded that the driver did not have any endorsement to drive transport vehicle and he was having license only to drive light motor vehicle, therefore, the insurance company may be exonerated from payment of compensation

¶22

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.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the the learned Tribunal has committed an error of law in awarding less amount of compensation, the amount spent on treatment has not been properly given. During the treatment, his left leg was operated and rod was fixed in his left leg by the doctor and so many test had been done on which Rs. 2,00,000/- was incurred as medical expenses. Further the appellant is facing great difficulties in walking, sitting and in doing his work of driver. 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 during treatment. Apart from this, the compensation awarded on the other heads is also on the lower side. Therefore, this claim petition is also entitled for suitable enhancement.

¶24

¶25

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3/ insurance company submits that the appellant has not filed disability certificate as regards his injury sustained by him. Further 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.

¶26

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

¶27

Learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation as under:

¶28

Sl. No.	Heads		Calculation
1.	For loss of income treatment	during	Rs. 30,000/-
2.	For Medical Bill		Rs. 78,790/-
3.	For Special diet, suffer and Transportation	pain & and	Rs. 10,000/-
4.	Pain and Agony		Rs. 10,000/-
5.	Total compensation		Rs. 1,28,790/-

¶29

10.The Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation for medical bill amounting to Rs. 78,790/- which, being just and proper is hereby maintained.

¶30

11.On the basis of evidence and documents of Medical Details (Ex.P- 10 to Ex.P-14), and Discharge Ticket (Ex.P-9) produced by the appellant before the Trial Court, it clearly shows that as a result of the said

¶31

¶32

accident, the appellant had suffered serious injury due to hip and femur bone fracture and during treatment, his left leg was operated and rod was fixed and for which, expenditure would be spent on future treatment and medical check-up. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the future medical expenses and other heads need to be enhanced.

¶33

12.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, material available on record, this Court is recomputing the compensation as below:-

¶34

Sl. No.	Heads	Calculation
1.	For loss of income during treatment	Rs. 30,000/-
2.	For Medical Bill	Rs. 78,790/-
3.	For Future Medical Expenses	Rs. 25,000/-
4.	For Special diet, pain & suffer and and	Rs. 15,000/-
5.	For Attendant	Rs. 10,000/-
6.	For Transportation	Rs. 15,000/-
7.	For Pain and Agony	Rs. 30,000/-
8.	Total compensation	Rs. 203,790/-

¶35

13.For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 1,28,790/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 2,03790/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 1,28,790/-, the claimant is held entitled to get for an additional amount of Rs. 75.000/-, the additional amount shall carry interest @6% per annum from the date

¶36

¶37

of claim application. The insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation within 60 days.

¶38

14.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.

¶39

15.Appeal is thus partly allowed.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶42

Jyoti

Lakshminarayan Sahu v. Manish Kumar Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshminarayan Sahu v. Manish Kumar Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagrani Das Vs Harihar Das

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Rajnibai

Nikki Ajgalle Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramnaresh Chakradhari Vs Paltu Ram Sinha

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Santosh Jha @ Satya Jha

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Santu Ram