Kamlesh Sahu Vs Rakesh Sahu

¶1

1 / 5

¶2

Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2024.11.07 17:15:46 +0530

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 424 of 2016

¶6

Kamlesh Sahu, S/o Shri Kedar Prasad Sahu, aged about 28 Years, R/o Near Gayatri Temple, Bus Stand Sanjay Nagar Kurud, P.S.- Kurud, Civil and Revenue Distt.- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant)

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

Rakesh Sahu, S/o Shri Balram Singh Sahu, aged about 30 Years, R/o Irrigation Colony Gurur, Thana and Tahsil- Gurur, Civil and Revenue Distt.- Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Driver of Pickup CG-05- D-0790)

¶10

Smt. Punam Sahu, W/o Shri Girdhar Sahu, aged about 41 Years, R/o Village- Kolihar, Thana and Tahsil- Gurur, Civil and Revenue Distt.Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Owner of Pickup CG-05-D-0790)

¶11

National Insurance Company Limited, Through Manager, Office Kamthi Line Rajnandgaon, Thana and Tahsil- Rajnandgaon, Civil and Revenue Distt.- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer of Pickup CG05-D-0790)

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

For Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 1 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate on behalf of & 2 Mr. P.K. Patel, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

¶15

Judgment on Board

¶16

07/11/2024

¶17

This appeal is by the claimant/injured against the award dated 19.01.2016 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, C.G. in Claim Case No.120/2014, awarding total compensation of Rs.3,30,250/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the

¶18

2 / 5

¶19

date of application till its realization, while fastening liability on the nonapplicant Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally.

¶20

As per claim petition, on 30.11.2013, claimant/injured- Kamlesh Sahu, aged about 28 years, earning Rs.50,000/- by running a Car Shringar shop was going to his village Kurud from Raipur on motorcycle bearing registration No.CG05-L-9659, however, on the way, when he reached near Urla turning, at that time, non-applicant No.1/driver of the pick-up bearing registration No.CG05-D-0790 (hereinafter called as 'offending vehicle'), by driving the same in a rash and negligent, dashed the motorcycle of claimant- Kamlesh Sahu from back side, as a result of which, claimant- Kamlesh Sahu sustained grievous injuries over his body. Thereafter, he was admitted in the Ram Krishna Care Hospital, Raipur where he remained from 01.12.2013 to 14.12.2013. Due to the said accident, knee of left leg of claimant/injured was fractured and during treatment, steel rod was also inserted in his left leg. At the relevant time, the offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant No.2 and was insured with non-applicant No.3.

¶21

On claim petition being filed by the claimant/injured under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.32,00,000/-, the Tribunal considering the evidence led by both the parties passed an award as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, whereas it should be Rs.8,000/- per month looking to the nature of work of the claimant/injured. He further submits that although AW-2 Dr. Vinod Kumar Pandey, who examined the claimant, issued temporary disability certificate to the extent of 50%, but he himself admitted that claimant/injured cannot become

¶23

3 / 5

¶24

completely healthy and would always remain partial deformity and for taking complete treatment and operation in Dhamtari, claimant would require expenses of Rs.1,50,000/-. Therefore, it is prayed by counsel for the claimant that amount awarded by the Tribunal towards temporary disability needs to be enhanced suitably. He also submits that the lump-sum amount awarded by the Tribunal towards physical and mental agony, attendant, special diet and other expenses is also on lower side, which also requires to be enhanced suitably.

¶25

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, while admitting that no separate appeal has been filed by them against the impugned award, support the impugned award and submit that the Tribunal considering all the relevant aspects of the matter has rightly awarded compensation, which needs no interference by this Court.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶27

As regards the income of the claimant, though the claimant in the claim petition has pleaded that he used to earn Rs.50,000/- per month by running a Car Shringar shop, but no documentary evidence with respect to his income has been adduced by him to substantiate the said fact. Therefore, in absence of such documentary evidence, the Tribunal, on its own, assessed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/- per month, which in my considered opinion, is on lower side. Therefore, considering the facts of the case, the nature of work of claimant, the rate of inflation and the minimum wages provision at the relevant time, I propose to recompute the compensation by taking into account the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- on notional basis. Thus, the loss of income of claimant for three months is assessed to Rs.15,000/- .

¶28

4 / 5

¶29

As regards the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards temporary disability to the claimant, although AW-2 Dr. Vinod Kumar Pandey, who examined the claimant, issued temporary disability certificate to the extent of 50%, but he himself admitted that claimant/injured cannot become completely healthy and would always remain partial deformity and he will have to face difficulty in lifting weights, climbing stairs and sitting cross-legged and for taking complete treatment and operation in Dhamtari, claimant would require expenses of Rs.1,50,000/- for treatment. Despite that the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- on that head, which in my considered opinion, is on lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably. Therefore, looking to the evidence of AW-2 Dr. Vinod Kumar Pandey, nature of temporary disability arising out of injury sustained by him in the accident and the period of his hospitalization i.e. from 01.12.2013 to 14.12.2013 (14 days), I propose to award Rs.1,50,000/- in place of Rs.25,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal in this regard.

¶30

This apart, the lump-sum amount of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards physical and mental agony, special diet and other heads is also on lower side and needs consideration. Therefore, I propose to recompute the compensation by taking into account the nature and extent of injuries sustained by the claimant in the said accident and accordingly, I am inclined to grant a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards above heads in place of Rs.25,000/-. In addition to above, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,71,250/- towards medical expenses, which in the considered opinion of this Court, is just and proper.

¶31

So far as non-grant of any amount for future treatment expenses is concerned, from perusal of the record, it is clear that on the date of accident, claimant suffered grievous injuries over his body and his knee

¶32

5 / 5

¶33

of left leg was also found to be fractured and during treatment, steel rod was also inserted in his left leg. Thus, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and extent of injury sustained by the appellant/claimant, this Court is of the opinion that Tribunal has erred in not granting any amount for future treatment expenses, whereas the Tribunal ought to have granted the compensation to the tune of Rs.30,000/- for future treatment expenses as the claimant has to remove the rod inserted in his knee of left leg in future. Thus, a sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded under the head of future treatment.

¶34

If the above amounts are calculated (Rs.15,000/- + Rs.1,50,000/-+ Rs.60,000/- + Rs.2,71,250/- + Rs.30,000/-), then the appellant/claimant is entitled to be awarded a sum of Rs.5,26,250/- as total compensation in place of Rs.3,30,250/- as awarded by the Tribunal.

¶35

Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.3,30,250/- and after deducting the same from the above amount i.e. Rs.5,26,250/- awarded by this Court, the claimant is held entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.1,96,000/- which shall carry interest as awarded by the Tribunal. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶36

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with modification in the impugned award to the above extent.

¶37

Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge

¶38

Akhilesh

Kamlesh Sahu v. Rakesh Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh Sahu v. Rakesh 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

Ranjlal and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shahajada @ Shahjad Ali Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Brijpal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Meenabai Vs Omprakash

Smt. M. S. Lakshmi Vs a. B. C. Enterprises

Divisional Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited Vs Hari Singh Rajpoot