Smt. Jageshwari Sahu Vs Bhushan Lal Sahu

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 333 of 2019

¶5

Smt. Jageshwari Sahu W/o Shri Janak Ram Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Saklor, P.S. Suhela Tahsil And Distict- BalodabazarBhatapara, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Bhushan Lal Sahu S/o Shri Shyam Lal Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Ramnagar, Gudhiyari, P.S. Gudhiyari, Raipur, Tahsil And DistrictRaipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Office At Shop No. 412-413, Fourth Floor, Ravi Bhawan, Jaistambh Chowk, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

For the Appellant : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 2. : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha with Mr. Prashant Sahu, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶12

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

¶13

27.06.2024

¶14

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) has been filed by the appellants/claimants, being aggrieved by the award dated 31.07.2018 passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal of the 4^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 880/2015.

¶15

1. By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/- to the appellant/claimant, on account of the injuries sustained by injured/Smt. Jageshwari Sahu in an accident that took place on 20.12.2013 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Truck) bearing Registration No. CG-04-ZA-9235 by respondent No.1/ Driver-Owner and insured with respondent No.2/ Reliance General Insurance Company Limited. As a result of the said accident, appellant/claimant sustained severe injuries in her left leg, thighs, waist and in the hip. She got admitted into the Balaji Hiospital Raipur for her treatment and spent huge amount in her treatment

¶16

1. As per the pleadings, the appellant/claimant was aged about 25 years and was working as a Labourer and she was earning Rs. 250/- per day.

¶17

2

¶18

1. Respondent No. 1 remained ex-parte before the learned Tribunal. Respondent No.2/Insurance company in usual course, denied the averments of the claim application and pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence and there is a violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy

¶19

1. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed 7 issues and after appreciating the material available on record decided the same in favour of the appellant/claimant and awarded above stated compensation.

¶20

1. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the amount of compensation is on the lower side. She submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding less compensation to the appellant/claimant and also not considered the medical bills i.e. Rs. 63,700/-. She further submits that the appellant/claimant has become permanent disabled and learned Tribunal has not placed its reliance on the evidence of Dr. A. A. Saify who proved the disablement of the appellant/claimant. She submits that the amount of compensation awarded on all other admissible heads is also on the lower side. Therefore, she prays suitable enhancement may be made by this Court.

¶21

1. Learned counsels for the respondent No. 2. support 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.

¶22

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

¶23

1. The first contention of Ms. Prachi Singh with regard to rejection of the disability certificate of the appellant/claimant. Perusal of the disability certificate P/16 indicates that it was issued after 3 years of the date of the accident. Apart from this, it is issued by private Doctor who has not even treated the appellant/claimant. In the evidence of Doctor he has admitted that fracture has been recovered. The learned Tribunal on the basis of evidence of Dr. A. A. Saifi and other relevant materials disbelieved the disability certificate and findings in this regard also been

¶24

3

¶25

recorded. Such finding appears to be based upon proper appreciation therefore, it is hereby affirmed.

¶26

10)The next contention with regard to proper amount of medical treatment has not awarded. The learned Tribunal has observed that the appellant/claimant remained in hospital for a considerable period of time, however, ignored the medical bill filed by the appellant/claimant. From of the evidence on record, it its reflected that the appellant/claimant was admitted in Balaji Hospital from 20.12.2013 to 25.12.2013 i.e. about 5 days. Ex- P/23 also indicates that she has paid amount of Rs. 61,000/- which has been overlooked by the learned Tribunal.

¶27

11)The third submission is with regard to income of the appellant/claimant is taken on the lower side. The date of accident is 20.12.2013, the learned Tribunal has assessed monthly income of the appellant/claimant to Rs. 4,500/- which appears to be on the lower side. This Court assesses monthly income of the appellant/claimant to Rs. 5,000/-.

¶28

1. Having thus considered the submission and perusing the records this Court is recomputing the compensation as below:-

¶29

S.N	Particular	Awarded by this Court
1.	For loss of income during treatment	30,000/-
2.	For medical bills	61,000/-
3.	For Physical and mental agony	25,000/- (as awarded by tribunal)
4.	For pain & suffering	50,000/- (as awarded by tribunal)
5.	For nutritional diet, transport & attendant	18,000/-(as awarded by tribunal)
6.	For loss of expectation of life	20,000/-(as awarded by tribunal)
7.	For loss of future earning	10,000/- (as awarded by tribunal)
	Total compensation	Rs. 1,64,000/-

¶30

4

¶31

For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 1,64,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 1,10,000/-, the appellants/claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 54,000/-. The additional amount shall carry interest @6% per anuum from the date of appeal i.e. 01.02.2019. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent.

¶32

The respondent No.2/insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from receipt of copy of this order. On such deposit being made, Rs. 54,000/- shall be paid to appellant No. 1 through bank transaction/account payee cheque.

¶33

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶36

Judge

¶37

H.Ansari

Smt. Jageshwari Sahu v. Bhushan Lal Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jageshwari Sahu v. Bhushan Lal 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

L and T General Insurance Company Limited Vs Durbadal Khamhari

Khemchand Jain Vs Suresh Singh

Pradeep Ku Sahu Vs Kumbh Lal Patel

Sushil Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sushil Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Omkar Sahu Vs Dhruv Sahu