Dismissed¶32

Bhola Ram Patel v. Ku. Gagri

Chhattisgarh HC3 Apr 2024MAC/500/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MAC No. 500 of 2016, High Court of Chhattisgargh, Bilaspur (decided 04.04.2024, Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.) — Bhola Ram Patel (vehicle owner/appellant) v. Ku. Gagri & Menu Patel. Keywords: Section 173 Motor Vehicles Act 1988 appeal; just and proper compensation; adequacy of MACT award; permanent disability 40% reduced to 13%; multiplier 18; income Rs. 3,000/- p.m.; award Rs. 1,50,240/- with 9% interest upheld; claim of Rs. 4,70,000/-; tractor-bicycle accident 16.06.2015, Jagdalpur/Bastar; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The compensation amount determined by the Tribunal does not appear to be much but is just and proper compensation; therefore, there is no need to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. ¶30

Bhola Ram Patel Vs Ku. Gagri — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 500 of 2016

¶5

Bhola Ram Patel S/o Late Gun Ram Patel, R/o Vill. Dogam Khaspara, P.S. Parpa, Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Ku. Gagri D/o Aarkhit, Aged About 20 Years R/o Vill. Nawaguda P.S. Parpa Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Menu Patel S/o Damru Patel, Aged About 23 Years R/o Vill. Dogam Khaspara, P.S. Parpa, Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

For Appellant : Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Karan Kumar Bahrani, Advocate along with Mr. Praveen Tulsyan, Advocate.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board

¶13

( 04.04.2024 )

¶14

1. This appeal has been preferred by the owner of offending vehicle under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award dated 18.03.2016 passed by 2^nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, District-Bastar (C.G.), in Claim Case No.174/2015 awarding compensation of Rs. 1,50,240/- with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization, in favour of the claimants for their irreparable loss.

¶15

2. The gist of claim petition, in brief, is that on 16.06.2015 at about 10:00 a.m., Ku. Gagri was going to Jagdalpur for her work on bicycle along with her friends. When they reached Village-Dogam an unnumbered tractor Engine Number D57539 and Chasis Number 921214142453 which was driven by respondent No. 2 herein in rash and negligent

¶16

¶17

manner and dashed the bicycle of injured Ku. Gagri. Due to the aforesaid accident Ku. Gagri suffered grievous injuries on head and chest and she was admitted in Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur.

¶18

3. It is stated that at the time of accident, Ku. Gagri is an unmarried girl of aged around 20 years and was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month from the work of labour. Therefore, the claimant had preferred an application before the Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs. 4,70,000/-.

¶19

4. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents available on record, assessed the income of the injured Ku. Gagri is to be Rs. 3,000/- per month and Rs. 36,000/- per annuum. However, Ku. Gagri is an unmarried girl of aged around 20 years. Considering the age of the injured Ku. Gagri, multiplier of 18 was applied and 13% compensation towards disability has been calculated i.e. (Rs. 36,000x13/100)x18= Rs. 84,240 /-. Rs. 6,000/- for loss of income for not being able to work for 02 months due to serious injury, Rs. 5,000/for treatment expenses, Rs. 5,000/- for special diet and for physical and mental suffering Rs. 50,000/-, has been calculated and a total award of compensation of Rs. 1,50,240/- with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization has been awarded in favour of the injured Ku. Gargi. Hence, this appeal has been preferred by the owner for reduction of the awarded compensation amount.

¶20

5. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal ought to have seen and held that the accident occurred due to negligence of the both side. He submits the learned Tribunal ought

¶21

¶22

to have seen and held that as per the statement of doctor claimant has not suffered any permanent disablement. He further submits that the learned Tribunal ought to have seen and held that the disablement certificate which was produced by the claimant is only issued to a government employee. He further sumbits that the learned Tribunal ought to have seen and held that the doctor examine the claimant has not treated claimant hence his statement regarding permanend disablement is not admissible. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the Claimant is excessive and the same needs to be modified suitably.

¶23

6. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1/claimant that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no interference.

¶24

7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

¶25

8. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation nor a Bonanza.

¶26

9. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs. 1,50,240/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

¶27

10. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence of both the parties, it has been determined by the Tribunal that the injured Ku. Gagri was 20 years old and due to fracture in the femur bone of her leg, there was stiffness

¶28

¶29

in her right hip and knee. In the disability certificate Annexure P-9 issued by the District Medical Board and proved by Dr. L.L. Thakur (AW-2) in which 40% permanent disability has been mentioned, then the permanent disability of the whole body was estimated by the tribunal as ⅓ i.e. 13%. The monthly income of injured Ku. Gagri was determined to be Rs 3,000/-, the annual income was found to be Rs 36,000/- and after calculating 13% towards disability, considering the age of the injured, by applying a multiplier of 18, the loss of income due to disability comes to Rs 84,240/-. Rs. 6,000/- for loss of income for not being able to work for 02 months due to serious injury, Rs. 5,000/- for treatment expenses, Rs. 5,000/- for special diet and for physical and mental suffering Rs. 50,000/-, has been calculated and a total award of compensation of Rs. 1,50,240/- has been awarded in his favor of injured Ku. Gargi.

¶30

11. Keeping in view the pleadings of both the parties and the evidence presented, the compensation amount determined by the tribunal does not appear to be much but it is just and proper compensation. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal.

¶31

12. In this situation, the argument of learned counsel for appellant, that the Tribunal has awarded excessive compensation in favour of the claimant, is not acceptable.

¶32

13. Accordingly, this appeal of the owner is hereby dismissed .

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶35

Raghu Jat

Bhola Ram Patel v. Ku. Gagri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhola Ram Patel v. Ku. Gagri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanak Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nityanand Puri Vs Ambalgan P

Raja Bandhan Urf Rajpal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Lakhame Mandavi Vs Mayaram Yadav

Shatrughan Vs the State of C.G.

Branch Manager National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt Lakhme Mandavi