Partly allowed

Deepak Kumar Tandan v. Tejpal Sahu

Chhattisgarh HC2 May 2024MAC/522/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this suit for compensation arising from a motor vehicle accident, the Single Bench allowed the appeal partly. The court examined the loss of salary and future earning capacity. It enhanced the compensation by awarding Rs.1,00,000 for loss of future income and Rs.1,00,000 for customary heads, over and above the tribunal award.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No.2 to pay an additional sum of Rs.3,84,000/- along with the existing award, carrying interest at 6% per annum.

Deepak Kumar Tandan Vs Tejpal Sahu — Insurance | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

Reserved on 05.02.2024 Pronounced on 03.05.2024 NAFR

¶3

H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MAC No. 522 of 2017

¶4

Deepak Kumar Tandan S/o Ramdayal Tandan, Aged About 25 Years Occupation- Shikshakarmi, R/o Village Bhoring, Post Tumgaon, Police Station Tumgaon, Civil And Revenue District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 - Tejpal Sahu S/o Shivsagar Sahu, Aged About 23 Years R/o Mahamaya Para, Ward No.8, Police Station Nevra, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Registered Owner And Driver Of The Vehicle No. C.G.04 H P 4893)

¶8

2 - I.C.I.C.I. Lombard Company Limited, Vanijya Bhawan, Devendra Nagar Chowk, Sai Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Registered Insurer of The Vehicle No. C.G.04 H P 4893)

¶9

---- Respondents

¶10

For the Appellant : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Tessy Abraham, Advocate

¶11

________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, CAV ORDER

¶12

1. Challenge in this appeal is to an award dated 27.02.2017 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Mahasamund (CG) in Claim Case No. H-71/2015, by which against a claim of Rs.14,00,000 /- made by the claimant, an award of Rs.3,95,851/- has been awarded on account of the injury sustained by the appellant in an accident which took place on 02.11.2014 by rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e. Motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G.-04- HP 4893 by his driver cum owner/respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2/insurance company.

¶13

1. A claim application under Sections 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) has been filed inter alia pleading that on the date of accident, the appellant suffered serious injuries on his right leg and other parts of his body and a steel rod was

¶14

¶15

also inserted in his knee and he remained admitted in Shrinarayana Hospital, Raipur from 02.11.2014 to 14.11.2014.

¶16

Respondent No.1/driver cum owner filed his written statement and denied the averments of the claim application it was pleaded that vehicle was insured with respondent No.3, if any liability to pay compensation arises, the same would be on respondent No.3/Insurance company. Respondent No. 2 filed its written statement and denied the averments made in the claim application and it was denied that appellant/claimant suffered any grievous injury. It was also pleaded that offending vehicle was driven in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license. It was also pleaded that the appellant got injured due to his negligence and the compensation amount has been inflated by him in the claim application, therefore, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation.

¶17

1. Learned tribunal on the basis of above pleadings framed as many as 5 issues which have been decided in favour of claimant/appellant.

¶18

1. Mr. Ruparel, appearing on behalf of appellant/claimant argued that though the appellant was specially abled prior to the accident, however as result of the accident, he would not go to join his work for almost one and half year, he suffered loss of his salary and he has to obtain compensation for that purpose and no future prospects was added and apart from this compensation on other heads is also on the lower side, therefore, it may suitably be enhanced.

¶19

¶20

1. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2/Insurance Company supports the award and submits that the appellant was specially abled prior to the accident but no further disability was caused to him in the said accident and nothing is on record to suggest that he sustained certain loss during the treatment and therefore, the award is just.

¶21

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

¶22

1. The tribunal awarded the compensation in the following manner:Rs.20,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.20,000/- for special diet and transportation; Rs.13,932/- for loss of salary; Rs.3,41,919/- for medical expenses and awarded total compensation of Rs.3,95,851/-.

¶23

1. The appellant/claimant was examined himself and deposed in his evidence that as a result of the accident, he sustained fracture on his right leg, a steel rod was inserted above and below the knee by a surgery and he remained in hospitalization from 02.11.2014 to 14.11.2014 in Narayana Hospital Raipur. His treatment is still continued. As a result of said accident, he is unable to do his daily day rountine without assistance. He further deposed that he was working as a Sikshakarmi in Education Office Mahasamund at village Bhurin where he used to get salary of Rs.12,000/- per month. He further deposed that as a result of accident he is not able to go to his work. In closing evidence he stated that after he is cured he will again appear on his work. He further deposed that before the accident left leg was paralyzed and he specially abled from one leg prior to accident. Gajendra Kumar (AW-8) District Education Officer was examined and he has stated that appellant

¶24

¶25

is posted as Teacher Panchayat since 07.02.2009 and from 02.11.2014 he is on medical leave. He has been paid his salary till February, 2015 and was not paid salary of November, 2014. He further deposed that the appellant is not a Government employee and is an employee of Panchayat. Hence he is not paid salary during the medical leave. He further deposed that in this context no work no payment rule is applicable and Medical bills would also not be paid. He admitted that the appellant was appointed under the special ablement category. He further stated that he has not brought any application for medical leave made by appellant/claimant. He further deposed that the appellant/claimant has been paid salary of February, 2015. He further deposed that he has not brought any document with regard to non-payment of the salary to the appellant.

¶26

Bhageluram- Head Master was examined as AW-9 in his evidence he deposed that the appellant is working under him in the school and he is not coming to school from 02.11.2014, due to said accident, he is on medical leave. He further deposed that he has submitted a leave application upto 01.10.2016 on the medical ground which has been forwarded by him to Block Education Officer, Mahasamund. Dr. N. K. Mandape (AW-4) was examined to prove the disability of the appellant/claimant he has exhibited a disability certificate Ex.A-17 issued by District Medical Board and assessed the special ablement to the extent of 70%. He further deposed that on account of special ablement, the appellant is unable to perform his daily day routine. The Special ablement is a permanent nature and in his cross-examination he deposed that the certificate was issued for 3 years. He further deposed that the

¶27

¶28

appellant is specially abled from his left leg prior to the accident. He further deposed that in the certificate which has not been mentioned as to what kind of disability is caused to the appellant the special ablement of 70% is with regard to right thigh and right leg. He further deposed that the accident of special ablement for whole body is not mentioned in the certificate and he cannot disclose the percentage of special ablement for the whole body.

¶29

From perusal of evidence and the material available on record, it is evident that the appellant/claimant is an employee of Panchayat and working as an Assistant Teacher. Record also reflects that during the medical leave he has not been paid any salary. Prior to the accident, he has already specially abled from his left leg, he was given an appointment on his post in the category of specially abled person. His salary is around Rs.12,000/- per month, date of the accident is 02.11.2014. Evidence also reflects that he has made an application for medical leave and could not join his duty for a considerable period. However there is nothing on record to suggest that he has removed from his post or likely to be removed. But the fact remains that looking to the injuries, at least for 3-4 months, he would not be able to join his service. Record also reflects that he was paid salary till February, 2015, it does not include the salary of November, 2014. Ex.A-160C indicates that from November 2014 till June 2015 the appellant/claimant appears to be on medical leave. However he was paid salary till February, 2015 barring salary of November, 2014 but it is not appearing from the record whether he was paid salary after February, 2015 till June, 2015 for about 4 months. Therefore, this

¶30

¶31

Court can safely held that appellant was not paid salary for 5-6 months on account of he being on medical leave.

¶32

Gajendra Kumar Dhruw (AW-8) stated that his salary in the month of February, 2015 was Rs.13,932/- which could be rounded upto Rs.14,000/-, therefore, this Court is inclined to award amont for loss of salary for 6 months i.e. Rs.84,000/-. Since it is not reflected that as a result of the disablement, he was removed from his services as such in absence of cogent evidence of causing loss on account of disability this Court notionally award Rs.1,00,000/for loss of future income. Tribunal awarded very meagre amount on account of other conventional heads like pain and suffering, special diet, transportation etc. Therefore, this Court further award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under these heads over and above the amount already awarded. Therefore, it is directed that insurance Company/respondent No.2 shall pay Rs.3,84,000/- in addition to amount already awarded which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of this appeal i.e. 03.04.2017.

¶33

Appeal thus partly allowed.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶36

Parul

Deepak Kumar Tandan v. Tejpal Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Kumar Tandan v. Tejpal Sahu

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

Somendra Pouranik Vs New Jeevan Bus Service

Smt. Jaya Vs Kamlesh

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

Smt. Sangeeta Chandak Vs Bhanwar Lal Rathi

Deleted (Etwa Ram Minj) (Died) Vs Krishna Kumar Singh

Smt. Bhan Bai Vs Akash Goyal