Partly allowed

Vikram Singh @ Vicky v. Haridarshan

Chhattisgarh HC1 May 2024MAC/884/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs. 66,000 in favour of a bus driver injured in a road accident. The High Court increased compensation to Rs. 3,02,400 for loss of income due to permanent disability, rejecting the Tribunal's view that fracture healing at a young age negated disability.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,02,400 for loss of income awarded in addition to the Tribunal's award, with interest at 6% per annum.

Vikram Singh @ Vicky Vs Haridarshan — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 884 of 2016

¶5

Vikram Singh @ Vicky S/o Balvindar Singh Aged About 22 Yearsm R/o Old Bhatti Para Kirandul, Post Kirandul, Tahsil Kuakonda, Distt. Dantewada C.G. Civil And Revenue Distt. Bastar C.G.

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Haridarshan S/o Chatur Singh, Aged About 30 Years R/o Boti Para, Ward No. 1, Bacheli, Post- Bacheli, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle)

¶9

Deenanath Mishra S/o R. K. Mishra Aged About 55 Years R/o New Market Bacheli, District- Dakshin Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Offending Vehicle)

¶10

Branch Manager, The National Insurance Company, Upon Central Bank Building Near R.M.S. Office, Main Road, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh (Insurance Company Of The Offending Vehicle)

¶11

Aanand Mishra S/o Jaiprakash Mishra, R/o Pratap Ganj Para, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, (Owner Of The Bus)

¶12

Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited, M.G. Road Near Jhankar Talkies, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar Chhattisgarh (Insurance Company Of The Bus)

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

For Appellant : Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent no.3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For Respondent no.5 : Mr. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board

¶16

02/ 05/ 2024

¶17

1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 02.05.2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.), in Claim Case No.468/2014 awarding compensation of

¶18

¶19

Rs.66,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization, in favour of the appellant/claimant.

¶20

2. The claim of appellant/claimant before the Tribunal, in brief, was that on 14.01.2010, when claimant Vikram Singh @ Vicky was driving the bus bearing registration No. CG 17 F 0260, respondent no.1 driving the offending vehicle i.e. Tipper bearing registration No. CG 18 H 0371 rashly and negligently, dashed the bus near Grace Fuel Petrol Pump, main road, Bacheli, as a result of which, claimant Vikram Singh suffered several grievous injuries, for which, he was first admitted in Apollo Hospital, Bacheli and then he was shifted to NMDC Hospital Kirandul and then to Ramkrishan Hospital Raipur for better treatment. Upon report being made in this regard, crime was registered against respondent no.1 at PS Bacheli, District Dantewada (CG).

¶21

3. It was claimed by the Claimant that on the date of accident, he was aged about 22 years and earning Rs.5,000/- per month by driving the bus of Bharat Travels. On account of the accident, the hip bone of right leg and the bone of his right shoulder got fractured, for which, he was first admitted to Apollo Hospital, Bacheli, then he was shifted to NMDC Hospital Kirandul and then considering the nature of injuries he was shifted to Ramkrishna Hospital, Raipur for better treatment. The claimant preferred an application before the Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs.14,50,000/- for disability, loss in future income, physical and mental agony, medical expenses and also under other heads.

¶22

4. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents brought on record, awarded Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses and physical and mental agony, Rs.30,000/towards loss of income for 6 months, Rs.6,000/- for Assistant and Rs.5,000/- for nutritious food, making in total of Rs.66,000/- in

¶23

¶24

favour of the claimant with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. Hence, this appeal for enhancement.

¶25

5. Learned counsel for appellant/claimant submits that the Claims Tribunal failed to consider the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant and the permanent disability certificate (Ex.P/10) brought on record and awarded a total compensation of Rs.66,000/- which is a very small amount. The Tribunal has erred in not accepting permanent disability. Hence, prays for allowing the appeal by suitably enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶26

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents oppose the submission made by the counsel for appellant and submit that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement.

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

9. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

¶30

10. It is an injury case. The claimant has brought on record his permanent disability certificate (Ex. P-10) issued by the Medical Board of District Hospital, Jagdalpur. According to the said certificate, there was 45% of permanent disability in his right leg

¶31

¶32

on account of fracture of hip bone. Dr. L. L. Thakur has also proved this fact. But the Tribunal has not accepted the disability part holding that since the claimant was aged only 20-21 years at the time of accident, the bone fractured during this age gets joined and the claimant has obtained the disability certificate after getting an X-ray done from the District Hospital, Jagdalpur, about 3 years after the accident.

¶33

11. However, from the statement of Dr. L. L. Thakur, who was a member of the Medical Board of District Hospital, Jagdalpur, it is clear that the hip bone of the claimant got fractured, on account of which, he sustained 45% permanent disability in his right leg. The claimant is a driver by profession, due to hip fracture he has 45% permanent disability in his right leg and as per the doctor he cannot drive for long distances. In such situation, 20% of disability in his whole body is assessed considering the injuries sustained by him on account of the accident regarding his loss of income capacity.

¶34

12. Learned Tribunal has assessed the income of claimant at Rs.5,000/- per month which seems to be proper as the claimant himself has stated his income to be Rs.5,000 per month. As per National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , after adding 40% towards future prospect i.e. Rs.2,000/-, the monthly income comes to Rs. 7,000/and the annual income would be Rs.84,000/-. Considering the permanent disability of 20% as has been assessed, the loss of income would become Rs.16,800 (20% of 84,000) per annum. Further considering the age of claimant to be 22 years at the time of accident, in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and

¶35

¶36

Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier would be 18 and after applying the said multiplier, loss of income due to permanent disability becomes to Rs.3,02,400/-. Accordingly, compensation of Rs.3,02,400/- towards loss of income due to permanent disability is awarded in favour of the appellant/claimant, in addition to what is already awarded by the Tribunal.

¶37

13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellant/claimant shall be entitled for the enhanced compensation of Rs.3,02,400/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. Accordingly, the impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact.

¶38

14. The Registry is directed to communicate the claimant in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the Claims Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi (Deonagri) language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimant resides. Sd

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶41

Khatai

Vikram Singh @ Vicky v. Haridarshan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram Singh @ Vicky v. Haridarshan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babulal Vs Rajesh Kumar Sahu

Ashwani Patel Vs Karam Singh

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Rajesh Kumar

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Bhaskar Dewangan

Ghanshyam Sahu Vs Pramila Bai

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Ravi Dewangan