Partly allowed

Somendra Pouranik v. New Jeevan Bus Service

Chhattisgarh HC1 May 2024MAC/500/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court enhanced the motor accident compensation award from Rs. 10,98,200/- to Rs. 15,88,400/- by reassessing the monthly income and applying a multiplier for 100% loss of earning capacity. The appeal was allowed in part, directing respondents to pay the enhanced amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation to Rs. 15,88,400/- plus interest @ 6% p.a. from 27.03.2017. 90% of enhanced amount to be invested for 3 years.

Somendra Pouranik Vs New Jeevan Bus Service — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MAC No. 500 of 2017

¶4

Somendra Pouranik S/o Sant Pouranik, Aged About 28 Years R/o Gandhi Ward Mungeli, Distt. Mungeli, chhattisgarh.

¶5

---- Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 - New Jeevan Bus Service Through Aakash Deep Gil Registered Owner Bus No. C.G.04 E 1382, R/o New Bus Stand Pandri Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Madina Manjil Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

3 - Durgesh Singh S/o Ram Kumar Singh, Aged About 42 Years Driver Of The Tractor No. C.G.10 D 5946 And Trolley No. C.G.10 D 1427, R/o Village Khairdongari Thana Pandariya Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh

¶10

4 - Rakesh Kumar Sahu S/o Sewat Ram Sahu, Aged About 46 Years Owner Of The Tractor No. C.G.10 D 5946 And Trolley No. C.G.10 D 1427, R/o Village Bhalapur Post Dullapur Tahsil And Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶11

5 - Faguram Sahu S/o Mangal Ram Sahu,Owner Of The Trolley No. C.G.10 D 1427 R/o Village Dhob Bhatti Post Chandeli Tahsil Rormi Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶12

6 - The New India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office Rama Tred Center Second Floor Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

7 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Address Branch Office 2952/954 Appa Saheb Mardhe Marg Chaitanya Tower Prabha Devi Mumbai.

¶14

---- Respondents For the Appellant : Mr. A. L. Singroul, Adv. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. N. K. Malaviya, Adv For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Adv. For Respondent No.7 : Ms. Shristi Upadhyay, Adv.

¶15

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

¶16

02.05.2024

¶17

Challenge in this appeal is to an award dated 28.02.2017 passed

¶18

by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli District Mungeli (CG) in claim case No.103/2015, by which against a claim of Rs.18,20,000/- made by the appellant/claimant, compensation of Rs.10,98,200/- has been awarded on account of the injury sustained by the appellant/claimant in an accident which took

¶19

¶20

place on 29.06.2012 by rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e. Bus bearing registration No. C.G.-04-E/1382 by his driver, owned by respondent No.1/owner and insured with respondent No.2/insurance company.

¶21

1. As per claim application, at the time of said accident, the appellant/claimant was aged about 28 years and by doing work of Photocopy Machine earning a monthly income of Rs.9000/- and he sustained serious injuries in the aforesaid accident including permanent disablement and spent huge amount on his treatment, therefore, aforesaid compensation was claimed.

¶22

1. Respondents No.3 to 5 proceeded ex-parte before the tribunal. The claim application was resisted by other respondents on various grounds including the insurance company of offending vehicle i.e. bus taking a plea that the offending vehicle was driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy.

¶23

1. Learned tribunal on the basis of above pleadings framed as many

¶24

as 7 issues which have been decided in favour of claimant/appellant.

¶25

1. Mr. Singroul, counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/claimant argued that the monthly income has wrongly been assessed and award of compensation on all other head is also on the lower side, therefore, suitable enhancement may be made.

¶26

1. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 supports the award and submits that just compensation has been awarded.

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

1. Though the disability certificate has filed to the tune of 70% which was issued by medical Board Ex.A-90 however the tribunal found loss of functional disability to 100%. Tribunal fell in error in considering the income of appellant to Rs.3000/- only, therefore, considering the nature of job, minimum wages, this Court assesses the monthly income to Rs.4500/- and reassesses the compensation in the following manner:-

¶30

S. N.	Particular	Awarded by this Court
1.	Monthly income of the appellant	4500/-
2.	Future Prospects @ 40%	1800/-
3.	Yearly income	6300x12=75,600/-
4.	Loss of earning capacity 100%	75,600/-
5.	Multiplier of 17 applied to assess the loss of future earning capacity	12,85,200/-
6.	Medical treatment	1,58,200/- as awarded by tribunal
7.	For pain and suffering	50,000/-
8.	For Attendant & Transportation	15,000/-
9.	For Nutritional diet	10,000/-
10.	Loss of amenity & enjoyment of life	50,000/-
11.	Loss of earning during treatment	10,000/-
12.	Future treatment	10,000/-
13.	Total compensation	15,88,400/-

¶31

1. The amount of compensation of Rs.10,98,200/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs.15,88,400/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.10,98,200/-, the claimants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.4,90,200/-, the additional amount shall carry interest @6% per annum from the date of appeal i.e. 27.03.2017. The respondents No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the enhanced amount of compensation within 60 days.

¶32

¶33

1. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. On such deposit being made, out of the amount worked out by way of enhancement, let 90% thereof be invested in some nationalized bank for 3 years in the name of appellant/claimant and the remainder be paid to him through bank transaction. He would be entitled to receive interest on investment.

¶34

1. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶37

Parul

Somendra Pouranik v. New Jeevan Bus Service

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somendra Pouranik v. New Jeevan Bus Service

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogesh Jaiswal Vs Sebastiyus Ekka

Mamta Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sukhnandan Singh Paikra Vs Navrang

Smt. Jaya Vs Kamlesh

Univeb Sleepers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Shri Deosingh Sai Paikra Vs Shri Madhusudan Singh